Dismissed

Jagdish Parshad etc. v. U.H.B.V.N.L. etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2009CWP/14779/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Assistant Lineman, alleging non-eligibility due to lack of prescribed ITI qualification. The court held that the candidate possessing a Diploma in Electrical Engineering was eligible as it was a higher qualification in the same line.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the selection was dismissed.

Jagdish Parshad etc. Vs U.H.B.V.N.L. etc. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 14779 of 2007

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 19.08.2009

¶4

Jagdish Prasad and another

¶5

.... PETITIONERS

¶6

Versus

¶7

Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶13

¶14

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

¶15

The petitioners, who are the un-successful candidates, have filed the instant petition for quashing the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Assistant Lineman, made in the respondent Nigam.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioners that as per the advertisement No. 8/2006 dated 19.10.2006, the essential educational qualification for the post of Assistant Lineman was prescribed as (i) Matric with two years ITI in Electrician/Wireman Trade or 2 years vocational course under the trade of Lineman conducted by Director, ITI & Vocational Education, Haryana from

¶17

CWP No. 14779 of 2007

¶18

-2-

¶19

any institute recognized by the State Government; and (ii) the candidate must have passed Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.4 was not possessing the two years ITI Certificate in Electrician/Wireman Trade, therefore, he was not eligible for the said post, but was illegally called for interview and subsequently, selected against the post Assistant Lineman.

¶20

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that respondent No.4 was possessing the Diploma in Electrical Engineering from Board of Technical Education, Haryana, which is higher than the requisite qualification in the same line, therefore, he was considered eligible and was called for interview for appointment on the post of Assistant Lineman. It is further averred that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Pankaj Singh Rao v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5834 of 2004, decided on 5.8.2004, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors., JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 85, the candidates possessing the higher qualification in the same line are to be considered eligible. It has also been stated that respondent No.4 had obtained 118 marks and was selected in BC-A category, whereas the petitioners, who participated in the selection process, secured only 102 and 111 marks in the BC-A and SC category, respectively, as against 117 and 115 marks of the last selected candidate in their respective category. It has been further stated that no ineligible candidate was called for interview.

¶21

CWP No. 14779 of 2007

¶22

-3-

¶23

I have heard counsel for the parties.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though respondent No.4 was possessing the higher qualification in the same line, he could not be considered eligible, when he did not possess the qualification of two years ITI in Electrician/Wireman Trade or 2 years vocational course under the trade of Lineman conducted by Director, ITI and Vocational Educational, Haryana. However, in support of her contention, learned counsel did not cite any judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pankaj Singh Rao's case (supra) as well as the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K.'s case (supra) and Stae of Haryana and another v. Abdul Gaffar Khan and another, (2006) 11 SCC 153.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. The Division Bench of this Court in Pankaj Singh Rao's case (supra) has held that the candidates, who were appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and were possessing higher qualification of Degrees of B.E./B.Tech. in Electrical/Electronics Engineering, as against the prescribed qualification of 3 years Diploma in Electrical/Electronics trade could not be held ineligible for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and the rejection of their application on the ground that they do not possess the advertised qualification was illegal. The Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K.'s case (supra) has held that the essential qualifications notified by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the post

¶26

CWP No. 14779 of 2007 -4-

¶27

of Sub Engineer (Electrical) in Kerala State Electricity Board included Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognised institution. The rejection of applications of the candidates who were possessing the B. Tech Degree in Electrical Engineering was held to be illegal, and it was observed that the qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of Diploma in that subject prescribed for the post and shall be considered to be sufficient for the post. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Abdul Gaffar Khan and another, (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 153 upheld the appointment of the candidates to the post of Unani Dispenser, who were possessing the qualification of Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery, instead of a Diploma in Unani Dispenser or Up-Vaidya, which was the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, in my opinion, the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 in the instant case cannot be said to be illegal, because he was possessing the Diploma in Electrical Engineer, which is higher in the same line, than the prescribed qualification in the advertisement.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid legal position, in my opinion, respondent No.3 has committed no illegality while considering respondent No.4 as eligible and in appointing him on the post of Assistant Lineman in the respondent Nigam.

¶29

Dismissed.

¶30

August 19, 2009 ndj

¶31

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

Jagdish Parshad etc. v. U.H.B.V.N.L. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Parshad etc. v. U.H.B.V.N.L. etc.

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

(O&M)Dera Ram Dayal Vs Kartar Dass

Kali Ram Gupta Vs U H B v N L and Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs Punjab State Tubewell Corp. and Ors.

(O&M) Attar Singh Vs Tara Chand and Ors.

Mohinder Kaur Vs Hakam Singh and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh etc. Vs Chandigarh Housing Baord