JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of learned counsels for both the parties, these two petitions shall be heard together and disposed of with a common order.

2. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3.

3. Writ A No.29840 of 2010 has been filed seeking the following relief:-

“A. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Respondent no.3 (Annexure No.21).

B. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to work as Nalkoop Mistry, Nalkoop Anurakshan Khand, Bhadohi under Nalkoop Mandal of respondent No.2 and Division of respondent No.3.

E. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Paragraph-Ga of office memorandum dated 09.09.2008 issued by Chief Engineer as ultra-vires to Rule 9-Kha of the Service Rules.”

4. Writ A No.18844 of 2010 has been filed seeking the following relief:-

a) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Respondent no.2 (Annexure No.20).

B. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Nalkoop Mistry, Nalkoop Anurakshan Khand, Bhadohi under Nalkoop Mandal of respondent No.2 and Division of respondent No.3.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he being ITI certificate holder applied for the post of Tubewell Mechanic in pursuance of the advertisement notification wherein minimum prescribed qualification for seeking appointment over the post of Tubewell Mechanic was mentioned as ITI and having 5 years of experience from the specified institutions as mentioned in the notification itself. The petitioner submitted the experience certificate of 7 years and 4 months for seeking appointment under the eligible candidate in pursuance of the eligibility criteria as prescribed under the advertisement notification. The petitioner was selected and joined on the said post on 29.05.2009.

6. On the complaint as well as writ petition preferred by the respondent no.4, the discrepancy and irregularity while conducting appointment is specifically in favour of the petitioner has been highlighted wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has submitted the experience certificate on 16.09.2008 is not as per prescribed in the advertisement notification.

7. After re-scrutiny of the experience certificate as submitted by the petitioner, it has been revealed that the experience after ITI as obtained by the petitioner was only for 3 years and 4 months and before completion of ITI, it was 4 years.

8. The competent authority being the head of selection procedure decided vide order dated 25.03.2010 that experience as obtained by the petitioner before the ITI cannot be given any credence and as such the experience obtained by the petitioner after ITI is less than the prescribed experience in the advertisement notification dated 16.9.2008 and as such, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled even after putting him in the final select list which culminated into joining in the services and rendered for few months. The precise ground for challenging the determination as drawn while passing the order dated 25.03.2010 as well as order dated 31.03.2010 that the experience as mentioned in the rules pertaining to the Tubewell Mechanic as mentioned in the Tubewell Mechanic Service Rules, 1951 (The 1951 Rules) wherein the minimum experience required for ITI holder is only minimum 2 years as prescribed under Rule 9(B) and as such, the rules framed under the powers extracted from the Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be substituted or supplemented by the office memorandum/Government Order and as such in pursuance of the Rule 9(B) of the 1951