SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Rajendar Singh, S/o. Shri Mehar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh, Through Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 4925 of 2021
Decided On : 14-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generals and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Standing Counsel.

The court emphasized that it cannot modify or expand the prescribed qualifications for a position as specified by the statutory authority.

Headnote:

Qualification - Junior Office Assistant - Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel Junior Office Assistant (IT) Class III (Non-Gazetted) Ministerial Service Common Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2017 - Rule 2(b)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, sought the court's intervention after being rejected for the post of Junior Office Assistant due to not meeting the essential qualifications as per the amended Rules of 2020.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's qualifications, including a Trade Proficiency Certificate and a Diploma in Computer Applications, did not meet the essential qualifications specified in the amended Rules of 2020.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's qualifications were equivalent to the essential qualifications specified in the amended Rules of 2020 for the post of Junior Office Assistant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the statutory authority has prescribed the minimum qualifications for a position, it cannot be altered or expanded by the court. The petitioner's qualifications did not align with the essential qualifications specified in the Rules.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Junior Office Assistant.

ORDER :

Petitioner Rajinder Singh has sought the indulgence of this Court by way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. By virtue of the present writ petition, petitioner Rajinder Singh has sought the following relief:-

    (i) That impugned act of the respondents No.1 to 3 in orally rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Junior Office Assistant and then taking no decision on the representation of the petitioner, in law, amounts to executive inaction and same may very kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner and recommend his name to the Government for the post of Junior Office Assistant and allotting the Department in the State of H.P.”

3. The above mentioned relief has been sought on the ground that he is an ex-serviceman and during his service, a certificate, Annexure P-1, was awarded to him by the Government of India.

4. In the certificate, Annexure P-1, the Army authorities had granted a Trade Proficiency Certificate in Trade, described as “Clerk S.D.” which is described as equivalent to Civil Trade, Clerk General, Typist, Diarist, Enquiry Clerk, Record Clerk, Assistant Office, Accounts Clerk, as per the National Council of Training for Vocational Training/National Apprentice Certificate. It has also been mentioned in the Certificate, Annexure P-1, that the certificate, Annexure P-1 shall be treated at par with the certificate issued by N.C.V.T/N.C.T.V.T, in view of the equation for employment purposes by all States and Central Government Departments. The qualification of the petitioner in the certificate Annexure P-1, has been mentioned as 10+1.

5. After superannuating from the army, the petitioner has also passed a Diploma in Computer applications from HIMTEC Education System, which, according to him, has been recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the petitioner got himself enrolled in the Sub-Regional Employment Office, Ex-servicemen Cell.

6. The State of Himachal Pradesh has decided to fill up 2000 posts of Junior Office Assistants (JOA) (IT) on contract basis. About 400 posts were reserved for the ex-servicemen, which were allocated to the Sainik Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh to be filled-up from amongst the eligible ex-servicemen, as per the procedure prescribed.

7. Vide Notification dated 25.08.2020 (Annexure P-3), the Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel Junior Office Assistant (IT) Class III (Non-Gazetted) Ministerial Service Common Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2017 were amended.

8. Highlighting Rule 2(b) of the amended Rules of 2020, It has been pleaded that the essential qualification for the post, for which, the petitioner has applied, is 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University or Matriculate from Board of School Education with one/two year’s diploma certificate from Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in Information Technology (IT) and Information Technology Enabled Sectors (ITES), as notified by the Directorate General of Employment & Training, Government of India, from time to time.

9. Since the name of the petitioner was registered with the ex-servicemen cell, as such, the call letter (Annexure P-4) was issued, directing him to appear before the Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, on 20.03.2021, at 9.30 a.m. The said call was made for the submissions of the documents, so that the same could be verified.

10. Consequently, the petitioner appeared, where he has been told that his qualification is not as per the Rules, as such, he is not eligible.

11. The petitioner has also submitted the written representation Annexure P-4, in this regard and also visited the office of respondents No. 2 and 3 number of times, but, no heed was paid by the respondents.

12. Reiterating the stand that he is having the requisite qualifications, for the post, for which, he has applied, it has been prayed that his right to be considered has wrongly been r

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top