The main legal point established in the judgment is that the training period as Management Trainees cannot be counted as qualifying experience for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant General Manager (Technical) due to the specific qualifications and experience required for the post. The judgment also highlighted the legal provisions and orders governing the treatment of training period as qualifying service for pension and eligibility for departmental examinations.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The present intra-Court appeals arise from the common order dated 13th November, 2013, whereby W.P. (C) Nos. 3129/2011, 1145/2012, 1459/2012, 1460/2012, 2297/2012 filed by the respondents have been allowed, holding that the appellants were wrong in not counting the training period as Management Trainees as qualifying experience for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant General Manager (Technical). As it was still disputed whether the respondents would qualify even when the training period as Management Trainees was counted, and since the factual position was unclear, the impugned order dated 13th November, 2013 records as under:-

“12. One thing which is clear is that a person's candidature can only be considered if that candidate is otherwise qualified in terms of requirement specified in the advertisement. This aspect cannot and could not be disputed by either of the parties. Since there is shortcoming on both the sides, it is therefore eminently just that now a fresh consideration takes place of whether or not the petitioners have the necessary 5 years experience as on the date of the advertisement in question having been issued on 8.1.2011. In order to determine this aspect, respondent no.1 will designate an appropriate/competent officer who will hear each of the petitioners who will be entitled to file all documents to show that they have the necessary 5 years experience. If the competent officer of the respondent no.1 decides that one or more of the petitioners do not have the necessary 5 years experience, then, a specific communication giving the specific reasons as to why the 5 years experience is not completed by one or more petitioners, will be given to the petitioners. If the petitioners at that stage are dis-satisfied on account of any alleged illegal action of the respondent no.1, then petitioners at that stage can approach the Court.

13. The writ petition is disposed of by directing that respondent no.1 will consider afresh the eligibility of the petitioners of having 5 years experience as on 8.1.2011. In terms of this judgment, so far as the training period is concerned, the same will be counted as a period of experience required in terms of the advertisement because of the reasons given hereinabove. So far as the other periods are concerned, so as to total up to the 5 years experience required, these aspects will be examined by the competent officer of the respondent no.1 after hearing the petitioners, putting to them the necessary queries, asking them to file the necessary documents with respect to the queries which are raised by the competent officer, and thereafter, passing an order giving reasons and addressing a specific communication accordingly to the petitioners if they meet or do not meet the qualification criteria of 5 years experience. This order will be communicated to the petitioners, who if entitled in law, can challenge the rejection, if so done as regards one or more of the petitioners, by the respondent no.1 for the appointment to the post of Assistant General Manager (Technical) with the respondent no.1. The aforesaid exercise be now completed within a period of three months as jointly prayed for by the parties, and for that period and further till the decision is communicated to the petitioners of their rejection if any and also for a further period of 15 days thereafter, the interim orders passed by this Court reserving posts of Assistant General Manager (Technical) will continue. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations. Parties are left to bear their own costs.”

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents and are inclined to allow the present appeals.

3. The essential qualifications stipulated for appointment to the post of Assistant General Manager (Technical) through direct recruitment were;

(i) A degree in Agriculture, or a degree in Science with a Diploma in Food Technology or a Master’s degree in