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 to participate in the selection process, it would be a fraud with the Public and no Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Amitabh Rai, Advocate, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. By means of the instant Special Appeal filed under Chapter-VIII, Rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 2453 (Service Single) of 2008 (Amod Kumar vs. Director Training and Employment, Lucknow and 03 others).

3. On 08.01.2006, an advertisement was issued by the Director, Training and Employment, Uttar Pradesh inviting applications for selection on 11 posts of Instructor in the Trade of Mechanic (Tractor).

4. The eligibility qualification mentioned in the advertisement was as follows: -

(1) Having passed Intermediate Examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Board or any other examination recognized by the Government as its equivalent, (2) a certificate issued by NCVT in the concerned trade or the principles of teaching module in trade or a Diploma in the Trade issued by the Council for Technical Education or any other Institution recognized by the State Government and (3) a certificate under regular draft instructor training scheme of one year duration; or the principles of teaching module in trade not having facilities for instructors training (necessary practical will be provided after the appointment within three years) and (3) a minimum of two years’ experience in an industry or a training/ teaching institution either before or after obtaining instructor training.

5. The petitioner applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement and on 03.02.2007, the respondent no.1 had issued a letter calling the appellant to appear for interview on 16.02.2007. The appellant claimed that he had appeared for interview on 16.07.2007 but no selection was made as, according to the respondent no.1, no candidate was found to be eligible for being appointed as Instructor in the Trade of Mechanic (Tractor).

6. In March 2008, the respondent No. 1 issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications for selection to 11 posts of Instructors in Trade Mechanic Tractor.

7. The appellant-petitioner did not apply in pursuance of the said advertisement and he filed Writ Petition No. 2453 (S/S) of 2008 in this Court challenging the said advertisement seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider his appointment in furtherance of the earlier advertisement dated 18.12.2006 mainly on the ground that the petitioner holds the eligibility qualification mandated by this Court in the judgment dated 08-08-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1822 of 2004 – Upendra Narain Singh versus State of U.P. [2006 (7) ADJ 178], which in turn has to be read in the qualifications prescribed in Rule 8 of the Service Rules of 1991 as amended with effect from 08-08-2003 and the qualification no. 3 prescribed in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991 is not only misconceived, but is beyond the authority of the respondents no. 1 and 2.

8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment in Upendra Narain Singh (Supra), the appellant-petitioner has submitted that when this Court had issued a direction to the State Government “to advertise, hold and complete the selection process on all the vacancies within a period of four months from the date of delivery of this judgment.”, the respondents had no right to cancel the selection process and it had to be completed as directed in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08-08-2006.

9. In support of his contention that the Craft Instructor Certificate (CTI) awarded to the appellant-petitioner by the NCVT for the trade of Farm Mechanic includes trades of Tractor Mechanic and Agriculture Mechanic Machinery, the appellant-petitioner has annexed a letter dated 26.11.2007 written by the Director, Central Higher Training Institute (ATI) Ludhiana to the Director Training