2012 Supreme(All) 2470
[2013(1) ADJ 508]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ARUN TANDON, J.
RAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 52667 of 2004, 32037, 26400 of 2003, 45205, 44669 of 2005 and 52706 of 2004, decided on 18th September, 2012)
Counsel :
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Swarn Kumar Srivastava, G.P.S. Raghav, Sudhir Dixit, Vijay Mahendra, M.D. Singh Shekhar and Krishan Ji Khare for the Petitioners; Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, J.K. Tiwari, S.M.A. Kazmi and C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Minor Irrigation Department Boring Technician Service Rules, 1993—Rule 8—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 309—Selection—Advertisement—Post of Assistant Boring Technician—Challenging on ground that no selected candidate is possessed of qualifications as provided for under advertisement—Advertised essential qualifications i.e. Diploma from I.T.I.—According to respondents there was an error apparent in Advertisement as well as in Rules—Which were then applicable—In so far it prescribed two years diploma in trades mentioned as essential qualification—State Government realising said mistake exercised power under Article 309—Decided to amend Rules applicable for post—Rules so amended with issuance of notification—Rules 1993 amended with retrospective effect under notification of year 2006—Word “Diploma” substituted by word “Certificate”—Amended Rules would become applicable to selections in question—Contention liable to be rejected—In view of this advertisement was required to be amended—As it was contrary to qualifications prescribed under Rules—Selection on incorrect advertisement unsustainable. [Paras 5, 6, 10, 11 and 13]
Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of newly added respondents is taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not propose to file any rejoinder-affidavit.
This bunch of writ petitions has been filed with the prayer to quash the Advertisements published for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Boring Technician being Advertisement No. 01 of 2004-05 dated 29.9.2004 (105 posts), No. 03 of 2003-04 dated 2.6.2003 (401 posts) and No. 05 of 2003-04 dated 23.7.2003 (79 posts of SC/ST Category Candidates). These advertisements have been published by the office of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow. The appointments made with reference thereto are also under challenge :
2. Under the advertisement the essential qualifications prescribed for being considered for the post in question read as follows :
“Anivarya Ahartayein:
1. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Se High School Pariksha Ya Sarkar Dwara Uske Samkaksha Manyata Prapt Koi Pariksha Awashya Uttirn Ho.
2. (Ka) Rajkiya Pravidhik Kendra, Gorakhpur Dwara Diya Gaya Nalkoop Mechanic Pathyakram Mein Praman Patra Ya Sarkar Dwara Uske Samkaksha Manyata Prapt Koi Praman Patra Abhyarthi Ke Paas Hona Awashyak Hai.
Ya
(Kha) Nimnlikhit Kisi Vyavsaya Mein Sewayojan Evam Prashikshan Nideshalaya Uttar Pradesh Ya Audhyogik Prashikshan Sansthan Dwara Diya Gaya Do Varsh Ke Pathyakram Ka Diploma Abhyarthi Ke Paas Hona Awashyak Hai :
1. Machine Mistri (Machinist)
2. Fitter
3. Motor Mechanic
4. Mechanic (Antardahan Injan)
5. Plumber
6. Aujarsaaj (Tool Maker)
7. Rajkiya Pravidhik Kerndra, Laal Diggi Parkm Gorakhpur Ke Nalkoop Machine Ka Praman Patra Pathyakram
8. Wire Man
9. Turner”.
In pursuance to the said Advertisement selections have taken place. The petitioners were also the applicants. They have not been selected. The basic ground for challenging the select panel notified is that no selected candidate is possessed of the qualifications as provided for under the Advertisement.
3. According to the petitioners none of the selected candidates are possessed of the advertised essential qualifications i.e. Diploma from the Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.), Gorakhpur in respect of Nalkoop Mechanic or any equivalent qualification so notified by the State Government. It is further their case that none of the selected candidates possess any diploma granted by the Industrial Training Institute in the trades mentioned under the Advertisement (sub heading 1 to 9) of the essential qualification. Therefore, it is their case that the entire selections are bad.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents as well as by the private respondents who have been selected. It is admitted to the respondents that the selected candidates are not possessed of the qualifications/diploma as provided for under Clause 2(A) or 2 years’ diploma from the I.T.I. in any of the trades mentioned in Clause 2(B). All of them are possessed of a certificate issued by the I.T.I. in the trade of Mechanics. It is further their case that subsequent to 1963 the I.T.I.s in the State of U.P. have stopped teaching in 2 years’ diploma course in the trades mentioned in sub heading 1 to 9 of Clause 2(B) of the Advertisement. The I.T.I.s impart certificate training only in the trades mentioned.
5. According to the respondents there was an error apparent in the Advertisement as well as in the Rules which were then applicable insofar as it prescribed 2 years’ diploma in the trades mentioned as the essential qualification.
6. The State Government realising the said mistake exercised its power under Section 309 of the Constitution of India and decided to amend the Rules applicable for the post. The rules have been so amended with the issuance of the notification dated 11.7.2006 known as U.P. Minor Irrigation Department Boring Technicians Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2006. The relevant part of the amended Rules which has