Dismissed

V.Srinivasulu, Kurnool Dist and 3 Others v. v.C., and M.D., Apsrtc, Hyd and Ano

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2019WP/26907/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Corporation's refusal to accept ITI Motor Mechanic candidates for Shramik posts requiring ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade. The Court held that Motor Mechanic and Diesel Mechanic trades are substantially different and the employer's requirement was valid.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

V.Srinivasulu, Kurnool Dist and 3 Others Vs… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26907 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The instant writ petition, witnesses a third round of litigation on same set of facts and law at the instance of a different set of petitioners.

¶5

2. The facts in nutshell are thus:

¶6

(a) The respondent-Corporation issued a Recruitment Notification No.R3/684(23)/2011-HRD, dated 23.12.2011 inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Shramik on regular basis in the 1^st respondent Corporation, notifying the vacancies for each Region (District) and also in Zonal Workshops non-operating units. The qualification prescribed for Depots/Regions is, a person shall possess ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade certificate to work in the above sections. The bone of contention is the aforesaid qualification. The case of the petitioners is that, they possessed ITI qualification in Motor Mechanic Trade which is a two years course and the didactics of the said trade encompasses the mechanism of both petrol engines and diesel engines and therefore, the ITI Motor Mechanic Trade is a higher qualification than the ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade and hence they are eligible to appear for the recruitment test. It is their further case that all the petitioners have undergone apprenticeship in the 1^st respondent Corporation for a period of two years and later they passed the test after completion of apprenticeship

¶7

¶8

UDPR, J W.P.No.26907 of 2012

¶9

in APSRTC. The ITI certificate of the petitioners and the certificates issued by the RTC as the petitioners' having undergone apprentice training in diesel mechanic trade would vouchsafe their eligibility. Hence, they claim that their qualifications have to be considered in respect of the notification issued for Shramik posts.

¶10

3. The contention of the respondent is otherwise in the notification. It is pellucidely mentioned that the candidates who are in possession of ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade alone are eligible for Shramik posts. In the earlier notification issued in the year 2010, the Motor Mechanic Trade candidates were selected as Mechanics only. Thus, the petitioners who are in possession of ITI Motor Mechanic Trade are not eligible for Shramik posts as the qualification for Shramik is ITI with Diesel Mechanic Trade. In the counter filed by the respondent Corporation, it is further stated that in the Notification dated 23.12.2011, applications were called for the eligible candidates those who are in possession of ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade for the posts of Shramik . Later, interviews were conducted for the selections from 18.06.2014 to 20.06.2014, duly deleting the ineligible applicants such of those not in possession of Diesel Mechanic Trade, over aged, etc. The petitioners' case could not be considered as they were not in possession of ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade. The respondent Corporation thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶11

¶12

UDPR, J W.P.No.26907 of 2012

¶13

4. Thus, the point for consideration is whether the qualification of ITI Motor Mechanic Trade is equivalent to ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade and if so, the petitioners can be considered to be eligible to apply for the posts of Shramik ?

¶14

5. It must be noted that the issue is no more res integra as this Court on two occasions has expounded that the ITI Motor Mechanic Trade cannot be equated with ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade for the purpose of considering for the posts of Shramik in 1^st respondent Corporation.

¶15

6. In W.P.No.29446 of 2010 and batch in C. Raja and others v. The APSRTC, the issue was identical as that of the present one. Pursuant to the notification issued by the Corporation for filling up of the posts of Shramik , for which the qualification prescribed was ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade, the petitioners therein who have passed ITI course in Motor Mechanic Trade were not permitted to apply and hence they filed the batch of writ petitions. The contentions of both parties in the writ petition is similar to the present one. The observation of learned Judge in that case is thus:

¶16

“ Even from the contention of the petitioners, it is evident that the courses of diesel mechanic, on the one hand, and the motor mechanic, on the other hand, are substantially different from each other. Assuming that the course of motor mechanic is comprehensive in nature, the Corporation cannot be denied the discretion to appoint candidates with diesel mechanism alone. The justification offered by them, that a candidate with diesel mechanism is more suited to do, not only odd jobs but also can be entrusted with the duties, pertaining to other components of the bus cannot be brushed aside. Further, it is always competent for an employer to stipulate the qualifications for its employees. An employer is better suited to determine and prescribe the qualifications to

¶17

¶18

UDPR, J W.P.No.26907 of 2012

¶19

be possessed by the candidates. Unless it is pleaded and established that the qualifications are prescribed, with the intention of favouring a particular section, this Court cannot interfere. Since the respondents have offered a valid justification, their action cannot be said to be arbitrary”.

¶20

7. The same issue fell for consideration before another learned Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.1534 and 12704 of 2011 (P. Subba Ramaiah and others v. APSRTC). With regard to the contention that ITI Motor Mechanic Trade comprises the training in petrol engines as well as diesel engines and therefore, the said trade is a higher qualification compared to the ITI diesel mechanical trade and in that view, the petitioners therein are eligible to apply for the posts of Shramik and further the Corporation itself has taken a decision to treat the qualification possessed by the petitioners therein as eligibility criteria for consideration for appointment to the posts of Shramik vide

¶21

its notification dated 02.11.2010, learned Judge has observed thus:

¶22

6. xxxx “Learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce a copy of the circular and a copy of the same is produced which would disclose that “any trade which is of higher degree than ITI Diesel Mechanic can be made eligible for the post of Shramiks”. By referring to the said sentence in the circular, learned counsel for the petitioners emphasises that the petitioners are eligible to be considered for said post.

¶23

7. At the first blush, the said contention appears formidable, but on a closer scrutiny this contention has no merit. What is stated in the circular is that if there is any higher degree than the ITI Diesel Mechanic, the same can be held as eligible. It can be understood that in the flied of Diesel Mechanic when a person possesses higher qualification than what is prescribed, such person can be made eligible but not a Motor Mechanic. It may be true that some of the fields learnt by the Motor Mechanic were also covered by the Diesel Mechanic course but that cannot per se make him eligible to be considered, more so, when employer is not in favour of consideration of such person as eligible.

¶24

¶25

UDPR, J W.P.No.26907 of 2012

¶26

8. So, the above jurisprudential jurimetrics would show that this Court consistently observed that the ITI Motor Mechanic Trade and ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade are different from each other and when the employer specifically requires a candidate of Diesel Mechanic Trade alone, the candidate who possess the Motor Mechanic Trade cannot claim to have eligibility to apply for the Shramik posts on the ground that Motor Mechanic Trade is a higher qualification than the Diesel Mechanic Trade. I find no reason to come to a different conclusion. It may be that a candidate while pursuing ITI Motor Mechanic Trade, might have incidentally studied the mechanism relating to diesel engines. However, a general or incidental study of a subject cannot be equated with a specialized and intensive study of the same subject. Here, the stress laid by the Employer/Corporation is the trade in diesel mechanism since almost all the buses plied by them are Diesel engine buses. Hence, the Shramiks who deal with them shall have a comprehensive knowledge about the functioning of those engines. That apart, as observed in C. Raja and others v. APSRTC (stated supra), the employer is the best person to decide as to which category of persons are better suited for the work to be dealt with under him. The next contention of the petitioners that for some time they underwent apprentice in various depots during which period they have acquired knowledge with regard to the diesel engines and hence their qualification for the posts, can be accepted does not hold water. The working as apprentice cannot be equated with the possession of

¶27

¶28

UDPR, J W.P.No.26907 of 2012

¶29

certificate with requisite qualification. The decision reported in 1995 SCC (2) 1 relied on by the petitioners will not help their case. Thus, at the outset, I find no merits in the writ petition.

¶30

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall

¶32

stand closed.

¶33

________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶34

11.11.2019 MS

V.Srinivasulu, Kurnool Dist and 3 Others v. v.C., and M.D., Apsrtc, Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Srinivasulu, Kurnool Dist and 3 Others v. v.C., and M.D., Apsrtc, Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paidimaria Kamalamma Vs K Mohan Rao

Chavvakula Rajesh, Ysr Kadapa Dist Vs Gm, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and 3 Others

Doddoju Ankatala Anuradha Vs Pola Bhaskar

Chittoor Sukumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guggilam Bala Subrahmanyam Guptha, Vs State of Ap

Avanasi Ramanaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh