Dismissed

Visakh v. Soman v the Staff Selection Commision

Kerala HC5 Oct 2021WP(C)/20394/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to an employer to issue an experience certificate treating petitioner's apprenticeship training as professional experience for recruitment. The court held that since the petitioner was an unselected trainee with no assigned duties, the employer cannot be compelled to issue a certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fourth respondent to issue experience certificate detailing experience as apprentice trainee.

Visakh v Soman Vs the Staff Selection Commision — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943

¶4

WP(C) NO. 20394 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

VISAKH V SOMAN, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. SOMAN V.K., VATTEKKATT HOUSE, NAMBAZHIKKAD POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST, KERALA STATE-680 602

¶7

BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. LIJU. M.P

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISION BLOCK NO.12, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003, REP BY THE CHAIRMAN

¶10

2 THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (CENTRAL REGION), KENDRIYA SADAN, 34-A, MG MARG, CIVIL LINES, PRAYAGRAJ-211001, STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, REP BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (CR)

¶11

3 THE STATE SELECTION COMMISSIONER (SOUTHERN REGION), 2ND FLOOR, EFK SAMPTH BUILDING, DPI CAMPUS, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU-600006, REP BY THE REGIONAL DISTRICTOR

¶12

4 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 302, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER (HRD)

¶13

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶14

..2..

¶15

5 THE CHIEF MANAGER (HRD), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 302

¶16

BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA P.BENNY THOMAS D.PREM KAMATH TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) ABEL TOM BENNY JYOTHISH KRISHNA AHAMMAD SACHIN K. KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH JAIKRISHNAN.M.PISHARODI

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

ASG-SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR; SC, BPCL - M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶21

..3..

¶22

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2021

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner is an Engineering Graduate in the stream of Mechanical Engineering. He has applied for selection for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer [Quality Assurance (Armament Weapons)] in response to an invitation made by the second respondent. Similarly, he has applied for selection for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer [Quality Assurance (Engineering Equipment)] in response to an invitation made by the third respondent. Experience in the relevant field for a period of one year was one of the requirements in terms of the notifications issued by respondents 2 and 3 for appointment to the aforesaid posts.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶28

..4..

¶29

The petitioner had worked as a graduate apprentice with the fourth respondent for a period of one year. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent in this regard. It is on the strength of Ext.P2 certificate that the petitioner has applied for selection for appointment to the said posts. After the written examination, the candidature of the petitioner was provisionally rejected by the second respondent on the ground that the nature of work performed by the petitioner has not been mentioned in the experience certificate produced by him. Ext.P3 is the notice published by the second respondent in this regard. Similarly, after the written examination, the third respondent has included the petitioner in the select list only provisionally on the very same ground. Ext.P5 is the communication issued by the third respondent to the petitioner in this regard. In terms of Ext.P5, the petitioner was directed to furnish experience certificate clearly indicating the nature of duties performed by him as a graduate apprentice in the establishment of the fourth respondent. The

¶30

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶31

..5..

¶32

petitioner thereupon requested the fourth respondent to issue a fresh certificate in tune with the requirements of respondents 2 and 3. Ext.P6 is the communication addressed by the petitioner to the fourth respondent in this regard. Ext.P6 is now replied by the fifth respondent, the officer concerned of the fourth respondent, stating that the experience certificate has been issued as per their practice and no fresh certificate can be issued. Ext.P7 is the communication issued by the fifth respondent in this regard. The writ petition is filed thereafter seeking directions to the fourth respondent to issue experience certificate to the petitioner detailing the experience gained by him while working as apprentice trainee with the fourth respondent.

¶33

A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. The stand taken in the statement is that the petitioner has been given only an opportunity for training in the establishment of the fourth respondent in terms of the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961; that he was not

¶34

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶35

..6..

¶36

selected or recruited by the fourth respondent to do any work; that apprenticeship training is only a course of training under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different for different categories of apprentices; that the petitioner was never assigned any duties or work in the course of the training and that he was only allowed to observe and learn from the actual employees.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

¶38

Exts.P9 and P10 are the invitations issued by respondents 2 and 3 in connection with the selection for appointment to the posts referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition. The requirement in terms of Ext.P9 as regards experience reads thus:

¶39

“One year experience in Production or Development or Quality Assurance in the relevant field from a recognized organization or undertaking.”

¶40

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶41

..7..

¶42

The requirement in terms of Ext.P10 as regards experience reads thus:

¶43

“One year's experience in Production or Development or Quality Assurance in the field of Electrical or Mechanical or Metallurgical or Industrial Production or Automobile from a recognized organization or undertaking.”

¶44

Ext.P2 certificate issued by the fourth respondent to the petitioner indicates that it is only a certificate of apprenticeship training. It also indicates the departments of the fourth respondent where the petitioner was trained as an apprentice. The departments of the fourth respondent mentioned in Ext.P2 certificate are Maintenance, Procurement and Contract Services. As noted, the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is for a direction to the fourth respondent to issue experience certificate detailing the experience gained by him in the course of the apprenticeship training. As rightly pointed out by the fourth respondent, insofar as the petitioner was not selected or recruited by the fourth respondent to do any work

¶45

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶46

..8..

¶47

and insofar as he was not assigned any duties or work in the course of the apprenticeship training, the fourth respondent cannot be compelled to give any experience certificate to the petitioner.

¶48

In the said view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that this judgment will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the decisions of respondents 2 and 3, if at all he has any ground for challenging the same.

¶49

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

ds 02.10.2021

¶52

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶53

..9..

¶54

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶57

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 19.12.2018

¶58

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION DATED 24.09.2021 PUT IN THE SITE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶59

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL LIST DATED 24.09.2021

¶60

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ATTACHED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶61

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ATTACHED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶62

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 12.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶63

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24.09.2021 ISSUED TO THE SENDER OF EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED

¶64

W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2021

¶65

..10..

¶66

BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT SHOWING THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE POST SEEN EXHIBIT P3.

¶67

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT SHOWING THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE POST SEEN EXHIBIT P4.

¶68

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶69

ANNEXURE R4(A)

¶70

TRUE COPY OF THE APPRENTICESHIP CONTRACT REGISTRATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER.

¶71

ANNEXURE R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING SCHEME OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25.09.2021.

¶72

ANNEXURE R4(C)

¶73

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

¶74

20.12.2017 GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Visakh v. Soman v the Staff Selection Commision

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visakh v. Soman v the Staff Selection Commision

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

N.J. Johnson, Vs v. Sheeja

P.v.Ali Mubaraq Vs Salim

Muhammed Basid P.K Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Philip Vs Union Public Service Commission

Thankachan M.V. Vs Puncha Special Officer

Adv. Rathish H Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)