IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
Kalendra Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 2223 of 2014
Decided On : 03-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Order of this court – Prayer has been made for direction commanding upon respondent no. 2 to appoint petitioner as a Fitter from date on which persons, ranked below to petitioner in merit list were appointed as a Fitter – Held, Petitioner's argument that since certificate is issued from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, hence certificate itself, is proof that Institute is recognized by the State of Gujarat and hence SCVT, is not tenable – Petitioner has not been able to show any documentation as to recognition of his Institute from SCVT, Gujarat, case of WP (S) (supra), relied on by learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable in case in hand as in that case issue of non-appointment of petitioners on lapse of panel after one year was in question where as in case in hand issue relates to eligibility criteria in relevant trade i.e. of Fitter – Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
1. This writ petition was ordered to be heard along with WP (S) No. 1032 of 2014, as per order of this court dated 29.09.2015.
2. In the present writ petition petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter No. 179, dated 16.02.2014 (Annexure-8) issued by respondent no. 2 wherein, it has been intimated to the petitioner that petitioner has passed from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, which is not recognized from SCVT/NCVT and hence petitioner's appointment to the post of Fitter (Anudeshak) cannot be considered. Further prayer has been made for direction commanding upon the respondent no. 2 to appoint the petitioner as a Fitter (Anudeshak) from the date on which persons, ranked below to the petitioner in the merit list were appointed as a Fitter (Anudeshak).
3. The factual background of the case is that respondents-authorities published an Advertisement No. 50 dated 08.09.2009 for appointment in different posts under the respondent no. 2. At serial no. 2 of the said advertisement, 55 posts were advertised for the post of Fitter (Anudeshak) or Fitter instructor. Petitioner had applied for the post of Fitter (Anudeshak) alongwith his documents including the educational certificates, experience certificate and other certificates as per stipulations made in the said advertisement. Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board was the authority to hold the examination. After scrutiny of the application forms, petitioner's application was found to be in accordance with the requirements as envisaged in the advertisement and he was called for appearing at the examination, which was conducted by the said Examination Board on 18.07.2010. Petitioner appeared in the said examination and results were published on 20th October, 2010 in which petitioner secured CML Rank-25. Petitioner on the basis of his rank was called for counseling by the competent authorities vide letter dated 26.11.2010. The further case of the petitioner is that the Director, Labour Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, issued a letter on 24.01.2013(Annexure-6) and asked about the experience of the petitioner, so that his candidature can be considered. Thereafter, by letter dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure-7) Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Ltd., issued a letter that petitioner is working in his company since 18.02.2002 and continuing his job till date. Thereafter, vide letter dated 16.02.2014 (Annexure-8) respondent no. 2 Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training, communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner had passed from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat which is not recognised by SCVT/NCVT and hence, petitioner's appointment to the post of Fitter (Anudeshak) cannot be considered. Hence, this writ petition.
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari submits that the petitioner Kalendra Kumar had applied for the post of Fitter [Anudeshak], appearing at Sl. No. 2 pursuant to the Advertisement no. 50 dated 08-09-2009. The result of the petitioner was published on 20.10.2010, in which petitioner secured CML Rank-25, but, candidates ranked below to the petitioner in the merit list were appointed and the petitioner was not appointed. Learned Counsel then referred to the annexure-8 of the writ petition, which is a letter dated 16.02.2014, issued by the respondent no. 2 Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, and submitted that in the aforesaid letter in an arbitrary manner it was communicated to the petitioner that petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Fitter [Anudeshak] cannot be considered as petitioner has passed from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, which is not recognized by SCVT/NCVT. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in W.P. (S) No. 1032 of 2014, the petitioner therein Moti Shankar Mahato, and in the case
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Appointment has to be made strictly as per terms of the advertisement and in case, the candidates who did not possess the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement were permitted....
Misrepresentation of qualifications does not merit appointment; specific qualifications in job advertisements must be strictly adhered to for recruitment purposes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim based on a certificate issued at a later date, without a genuine mistake, does not qualify for additional marks. The court emphasized ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.