JUDGMENT :

[Neeraj Tiwari, J.]

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an advertisement dated 17.6.2020 was issued by respondent No. 3 for appointment of Technician Grade-II and as per advertisement, qualification for appointment was High School or equivalent with Science and Math alongwith two years diploma certificate issued by National Council of Vocational Training (in short ''NCVT'')/State Council of Vocational Training (in short ''SCVT''). Petitioner being Ex-serviceman, has applied for the same having certificate issued by Indian Armed Forces (Army) Trade Proficiency Certificate For Ex-Servicemen dated 29.2.2020, which is equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT, but his candidature has been rejected on the ground that certificate, so issued, is neither equivalent to certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT nor as per requirement of advertisement. He next submitted that Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training vide letter dated 4/13.3.2013 has directed all the Directors of State Government/UT Administration dealing with Craftsman Training Scheme to treat the certificate issued by respective departments of Army, Air Force and Navy equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/NCTVT. He next submitted that under such facts and circumstances, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.

3. Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of newly impleaded respondent No. 4 has filed short counter-affidavit, which is taken on record. He also relied upon the very same letter dated 4/13.3.2013 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training and submitted that this certificate is equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT.

4. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it is required on the part of petitioner to fulfill the qualification whatsoever is mentioned in the advertisement and undisputedly, the requirement is to have two years training certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT in Trade of Electrician, Electrical and Electrical (power distribution under skill development). He next submitted that undisputedly, petitioner is not having the certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT as desired in the advertisement. Similar controversy came up before this Court on so many occasions and Court has taken the constant view that requirement of advertisement has to be completed.

5. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Munesh Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 52658 of 2012) dated 28.9.2012 in which Court has held that under such circumstances, Court cannot proceed to exercise its authority to accord any relief.

6. He next placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sanjay Batra v. State of U.P. Throu. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko and others (Service Single No. 460 of 2014) dated 10.3.2015 and submitted that point No. 2 decided in the said judgment is the controversy of this petition. In that case too, three years diploma certificate was required whereas petitioner was having certificate issued by Indian Armed Forces (Army) and Court has again taken the very same view that if the petitioner is not holding any diploma of three years issued by authority mentioned in the advertisement, no relief can be granted.

7. Next, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Shukla v. Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow Thru. Chairman and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 392 of 2017) dated 15.9.2017 in which issue was the same. In