Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Piyush Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
NTPC Ltd. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1632 of 2021
Decided On : 26-10-2021
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Electrical Engineer, sought appointment as Experienced Engineer after clearing written and interview stages based on an initial advertisement that did not exclude training from experience. Concerns arose due to differing conditions in later communications that were not contested before participation.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the respondent acted within its right in excluding the training period for eligibility and maintained that no unfair prejudice had resulted to the petitioner.
Issues: The legal question concerned validity of changing eligibility criteria post-application and implications on fairness in selection processes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the selection process was valid as the exclusion of training was communicated prior to the selection tests; the petitioner’s failure to challenge this undermined his claims.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed against rejection of appointment. (Para 1) |
| 2. details regarding job advertisement and experience requirement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner's argument on selection process integrity. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. petitioner claims sufficient work experience. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 5. respondent's defense regarding experience exclusion. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 6. court's acknowledgment of experience timelines. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. august 2019 advertisement analysis. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. court's consideration of probation period exclusion. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 9. court's justification for dismissal of the petition. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (ORAL)--The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside/quashing order of rejection for appointment contained in letter dated 10.11.2020 issued by the respondent.
B. Issue an appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent to issue letter of appointment for the post of Experienced Engineer.
C. Issue appropriate direction to respondent to give all consequential benefits to Petitioner w.e.f. the date of appointment of other successful candidates on the aforesaid post.
D. Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. In the present case, the petitioner is an Electrical Engineer who had applied for the post of Experienced Engineer notified by the respondent through an advertisement dated August 06, 2019, totaling 203 posts. It is his case that the advertisement dated August 06, 2019, did not mention any requirement that the training period has to be excluded for computation of 3 years post qualification experience. Whereas a fresh notification/ advertisement was issued in July 2020 for 250 posts of Experienced Engineer mentioning so. It is submitted that, unlike the previous advertisement that was published on August 06, 2019, the second advertisement published in July 2020 explicitly mentioned that for computing 3 years requisite experience, the training period has to be excluded.
"Experience requirements" as per the Advertisements published in the years 2019 and 2020 are reproduced hereunder:
I. Advertisement published in August 2019
II. Advertisement published in July 2020
Experience Requirement: Minimum 3 Years post qualification experience in Executive and/or Supervisory cadre in relevant area.
Experience Requirement: Minimum 3 Years post qualification executive experience (excluding training period) in operation/ Maintenance/ erection/ Construction/ Engineering in Main Plant Thermal or Main plant Gas Power Plant. Out of 3 years, the candidates must have worked at least 2 years in power plant sites.
3. Pursuant to the advertisement dated August 06, 2019, the petitioner applied for the post of an Experienced Engineer. Thereafter, the admit card was issued to appear in the online test that was scheduled on March 04, 2020. However, unlike the initial eligibility (as per the advertisement dated August 06, 2019) criteria which prescribed only 3 years post qualification experience, the admit card details an additional requirement of exclusion of training period from 3 years post qualification experience.
4. That the petitioner, based on marks obtained in the online selection test held on March 04, 2020, was shortlisted by the respondent for interview. After, clearing the interview, a call letter for verification of documents was issued to the petitioner by the respondent. However, Para 4.0 of the call letter dated April 10, 2020, contained a condition that the post qualification experience of 3 years which was required for the post shall exclude the training period, although the original notification/advertisement specified only 3 years experience for the said post and nowhere it was mentioned that the training period has to be excluded.
5. To support the above-stated arguments Mr. Jay
