The revocation of a competency certificate under Rule 2-A of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 is justified, and there should be no discrimination in granting competency certificates.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), whereby show cause has been issued to the petitioner no. 1 calling upon as to why its application for renewal of competency certificate issued to the petitioner no. 2 under Rule 2-A of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1950”) should not be rejected since the competency certificate of the petitioner no. 2-Brij Bihari Tiwari was earlier revoked by the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to issue competency certificate to the petitioner no. 2.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship firm which engages competent persons for the purpose of carrying out tests, examination, inspection and certification under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder. Earlier, the petitioner no. 1 was issued certificate of competency with respect to one Surendra Kumar Singh being a civil engineer employed by it. After expiry of the said competency certificate on 18.01.2018, the petitioner no. 1 being an institution applied before the respondent no. 3-the Chief Inspector of Factories, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for renewal of certificate of competency issued in the name of Surendra Kumar Singh as well as for grant of fresh competency certificate to the petitioner no. 2 (a mechanical engineer employed by petitioner no. 1) whereupon a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 10.05.2018 to the petitioner no. 1 stating that competency certificate of petitioner no. 2 was once cancelled by the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand and, therefore, it would not be proper to reconsider his name as a competent person. The respondent no. 3 also stated in the said letter that as per the records maintained in the office of the said respondent, the petitioner no. 1 had failed to comply condition nos. V, VI, IX, X, XI and XII of the competency certificate, which was considered as violation of the provisions of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 and hence, it was required to file reply to the show cause notice as to why the application for renewal of competency certificate should not be rejected. The petitioner no. 1 replied the said show cause notice vide its letter dated 25.05.2018 stating that there had been no violation as alleged and there was no impediment in renewing the certificate of competency issued with respect to one Surendra Kumar Singh. It was also stated in the said reply that since the petitioner no. 2 was a qualified and experienced person fulfilling all the eligibility criteria for declaring him as a competent person under rule 2-A of the Rules, 1950, his competency certificate was cancelled with ulterior motive. However, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 31.05.2018 only recognized Surendra Kumar Singh as competent person and declined to recognize the petitioner no. 2 as competent person. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 2 cannot be deprived of getting competency certificate on mere ground that his certificate was earlier revoked by the then Chief Inspector of Factories and as such the respondents debarred the petitioner no. 2 for an indefinite period which is in the teeth of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. It is further submitted that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it has been informed to the proprietor of the petitioner no. 1 that a similarly situated person namely, Sumit Kumar whose certificate was earlier revoked was subsequently given the competency certificate and thus the respondents have discriminated the petitioner no. 2 as against similarly situated persons. It is also submitted that there is no provision in the Factories Ac