IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 22, 2009
Chanan Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab
for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The petitioner, who is an Ex-serviceman, has approached
this Court with a prayer for quashing the qualifications for the post of
Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Instructor laid down by the Punjab
Industrial Training (Class-III) Technical Service Rules, 2001 (for
brevity, ‘the Rules’) to the extent it requires a candidate to have
qualified the Craft Instructors Training Course from the Central
C.W.P. No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) 2
Training Institute/Advanced Training Institute in the concerned trade
from National Council for Vocational Training. He has further
prayed that the qualification be read down so as to consider the
petitioner as qualified.
It is appropriate to mention that respondent No. 2 issued
an advertisement inviting applications for filling up posts in 56 trades
on contract basis on a fixed salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month, including
six posts of Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Instructor. One of the
posts of Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Instructor was kept
reserved for Ex-servicemen category. As per the appendix attached to
the Rules, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of
Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Instructor was that the candidate
should have possessed Diploma in Electronic and Communication
Engineering from a recognised university or institution and at least
two years practical experience in an organisation registered under the
Factories Act, 1948 or at least two years teaching experience in a
Government Institution or an Institution recognised by the
Government. The alternate qualification on which reliance has been
placed by the petitioner is that a candidate should possess National
Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in Wireless
Mechanic-cum-Operator Trade from National Council for Vocational
Training and should have passed Craft Instructors Training Course
from Central Training Institute/Advance Training Institute in
Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Trade from National Council for
Vocational Training. Further requirement of the Rules is that he
C.W.P. No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) 3
should have possess at least two years practical experience in an
organisation
C.W.P. No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) 4
registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or at least two years teaching
experience in the line in a Government Institution recognised by the
Government.
It could not be disputed that the petitioner does not answer either
set of qualifications. He claimed to have fulfilled alternative qualification of
possessing National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in
Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Trade from National Council for Vocational
Training. As a matter of fact, the certificate possessed by the petitioner is that
of a Welder, which obviously does not belong to the trade of Wireless
Mechanic-cum-Operator trade. Mr. Raina then relies upon certificate dated
3.5.2003, issued by the Battery Commander (P-1) which states that the
petitioner has long experience which is equivalent to the qualification of
Wireless Operator. There is no such provision in the Rules recognising
experience as equivalent to qualification. This is not a fit case where vires of
the Rules could be examined on the ground that in the alternate qualification
Craft Instructors Training Course from Central Training Institute/Advance
Training Institute in Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Trade from National
Council for Vocational Training, has been provided and that no such course is
available in such institutions. Such a question can appropriately be examined
at the instance of a person who at least answers the other qualifications
provided in the alternative qualifications. Accordingly the writ petition does
not deserve admission. Therefore, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JASWANT SINGH)
July 22, 2009 JUDGE
C.W.P. No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) 5
Pkapoor