Dismissed

Shri. Kailas Parashram Khelukar v. the Gen. Manager, India Security Press, Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2022WP/12122/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging termination of employment due to non-possession of essential recruitment qualification. The court held that a higher degree does not justify employment when the essential qualification was lacking.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; termination of services upheld.

Shri. Kailas Parashram Khelukar Vs the Gen. Manager… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

wp 12122-18.doc

¶2

Diksha Rane

¶3

Digitally signed by DIKSHA DIKSHA DINESH DINESH RANE RANE Date: 2022.07.06 17:54:27 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12122 OF 2018

¶5

Kailas Parashram Khelukar ..Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The General Manager, India Security Press, Nahik Road & ors. ..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Karan S. Thorat for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Yuvraj P. Narvankar for respondents.

¶10

CORAM : A. K. MENON &

¶11

M. S. KARNIK, J.J. DATE : JULY 5, 2022.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order of termination of employment as a result of the respondent no. 1 having accepted that there was an error in process of recruitment and the petitioner did not, in fact, have the requisite essential qualification to be eligible for selection.

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated June 4, 2018 whereby the services of the petitioner was found to be untenable and his services were terminated without any stigma attached. The reasons indicate that the petitioner had applied for the post of Supervisor (Printing), S-1 Level at India Security Press, Nashik in accordance with SPMCIL Recruitment Policy 2012, which required an essential

¶15

¶16

wp 12122-18.doc

¶17

qualification for the post of Supervisor (S-1) viz a 1 st Class Diploma in Printing Technology. This was stated to have been stipulated by the Employment Notification dated April 20, 2015. The petitioner did not possess this essential qualification. He, however, was a qualified Mechanical Engineer holding a B.E. degree.

¶18

The impugned order admits that there was an error in the process of recruitment and the eligibility criteria was not made in the case of the petitioner. The order further records that if a candidate possesses the qualification listed among the “Desirable Qualification” he may be permitted to participate in the selection process. However, ineligible candidates could not do so. The error committed during the selection process could not have been continued and hence, there was no option but to terminate the services of the petitioner.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that once having been selected and having qualified as a Mechanical Engineer, he was entitled to be continued in the employment by virtue of the SPMCIL Recruitment Policy 2012 which inter alia provides as follows: -

¶20

SPMCIL RECRUITMENT POLICY – 2012

¶21

SUPERVISOR

¶22

Supervisor	1^st class Diploma in
(S-1)	Engineering/B.Com/Diploma in
	Taxation Law/Bachelor in Business	B. Tech / MBA	30 years
	Administration / 1^stclass graduate
	with diploma in HR related area

¶23

¶24

wp 12122-18.doc

¶25

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he possessed an engineering degree. He was qualified with a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering and therefore, by virtue of this default provision he was so selected and his termination for reasons set out in the impugned order is unsustainable.

¶26

We have examined the Policy and have also found the petitioner did not possess the basic essential qualification and that is a Diploma in Printing Technology. Absent such a basic qualification which is described in the Employment Notification but holding a B.E. Degree which is no doubt a higher qualification than a diploma would not in our view entitle to the petitioner to any protection. In our view, no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court and hence, we pass the following order.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(1) Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶29

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶30

Shri. Kailas Parashram Khelukar v. the Gen. Manager, India Security Press, Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kailas Parashram Khelukar v. the Gen. Manager, India Security Press, Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Save Education Committee Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajij Abbas Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Moonline Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India

Naval Kishor Pal Vs the Chief General Manager and Ors.

Sanjay Shivaji Thakar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.