Allowed

Chairman R P S C Ajmer v. Ravi Dutt Sharma and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2013SAW/696/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the Special Appeal, holding that the Public Service Commission was within its rights to require working experience acquired after obtaining the academic qualification. The Court ruled that the respondent was ineligible as his one-year experience preceded his degree, thus validating the disqualification.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the stay application was disposed of.

Chairman R P S C Ajmer Vs Ravi Dutt Sharma… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

:: JUDGMENT ::

¶4

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.696/2013 Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma & Ors.

¶5

Date of Judgment : 2^nd December, 2013

¶6

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶7

Mr.S.N.Kumawat, Additional Advocate General for the appellants. Mr.M.M.Mehrishi for the respondents.

¶8

¶9

BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶10

Heard Mr.S.N.Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Mr.M.M.Mehrishi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

The instant appeal presents a challenge to the judgment and order dated 4.7.2012 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14854/2011, thereby interfering with the order dated 13.4.2011 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ( for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Commission') adjuding the respondent/writ petitioner to be ineligible as a candidate for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector for lacking in post academic working experience, as prescribed by the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short, hereafter referred as 'the Rules') as on 6.9.2008, the last date of receipt of applications in terms of the related advertisement. By order dated 7.9.2012 passed in S.B.Civil Review Petition No.169/2012 , the appellants herein were directed to

¶12

¶13

ensure compliance of the said decision within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of that order.

¶14

The pleaded facts in brief, being unavoidable, have to be outlined

¶15

at the threshold. The Commission had issued a notification dated 26.7.2008 for holding competitive examination for direct recruitment to 66 posts of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector stipulating 6.9.2008 to be the last date of receipt of applications from the aspiring candidates. The advertisement disclosed the educational qualification prescribed by the Rules as well as the working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop, which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines. A driving licence to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles, was also insisted upon. As admitted by the respondent/writ petitioner, the conditions of eligibility were mandated by the Rules.

¶16

According to him, he had passed B.E. Automobile Engineering Degree Exam from the Rajasthan University held in June 2008 and also was possessed of working experience of one year having worked as apprentice with effect from 1.7.2007 to 10.8.2008, repairing petrol and diesel light and heavy motor vehicles, for which a certificate had been issued by Roshan Motors Private Limited, Jaipur to that effect. Before the expiry of the last date of receipt of application i.e.6.9.2008, as referred to in the notification dated 26.7.2008, the Commission had issued a corrigendum dated 18.8.2008 to the effect that the working

¶17

¶18

experience, as a norm of eligibility, was to be acquired after obtaining the academic qualification as prescribed. This corrigendum was published in the Rajasthan Gazette Ordinary in its issue dated 11.8.2008. It clarified as well that the candidates, to be eligible, were required to be possessed of the essential academic qualification, experience and the driving licence by the last date of the application i.e.6.9.2008. The working experience of the respondent/writ petitioner for one year, as required, as per his averments in the writ petition, was not after the acquisition of B.E. Automobile Engineering Degree.

¶19

Be that as it may, he was permitted by the Commission to sit in the examination provisionally and was declared to have passed the same. Eventually however, by letter dated 13.4.2011 referred to hereinabove, he was disqualified on the ground of not possessing the required working experience of one year after acquiring the educational qualification before the last date of the application i.e.6.9.2008. Meanwhile however, with the intervention of this Court, he could appear in the interview, whereafter results were declared by the Commission on 23.9.2011. His results were withheld, and on being produced in the Court, it transpired that he had secured in all 236 marks against cut-off marks i.e.237 fixed for the general category candidates. Thus, he was declared as well to be unsuccessful in the selection. It was in this background that he instituted the aforementioned writ proceedings, amongst others, for declaration that the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008 was invalid, being in contravention of the Rules and also for adjudging his working experience to be

¶20

¶21

sufficient to fulfil the prescription with regard thereto. A direction to the respondents was sought for to consider him eligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, and to appoint him thereto.

¶22

The appellants ( respondents in the writ petition ) insisted, in their reply, that the requirement of experience for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector was construed to be one acquired after obtaining the academic qualification and as the writ petition was bereft thereof, he was rightly held to be ineligible. Contending that it was apparent from the averments in the writ petition that the respondent/writ petitioner was lacking in the required duration of experience after passing the qualifying examination, respondents pleaded that the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008 was in harmony with the Rules, and thus, impugnment of the validity thereof was wholly misplaced. They asserted further that in any case, as the writ petitioner had failed to secure minimum cut-off marks fixed for his category of candidates, his claim for appointment to the post involved was clearly untenable. The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, returned a finding, relying principally on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 332 and Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 128 , that in absence of an ordainment in the Rules to that effect, the Commission lacked in authority to impose the norm of post academic qualification working experience, as effected by the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008. The challenge of the writ petitioner was

¶23

¶24

sustained and he was held to be eligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector and the Commission was required to declare his results afresh in terms of the operative directions issued therein.

¶25

Mr.Kumawat has insistently argued, with reference to Rule 11 of the Rules read with Schedule I thereto, that as the respondent/writ petitioner did not satisfy the imperative conditions of eligibility as prescribed, he was rightly disqualified. Contending that the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008 was visibly in conformity with the mandate of the Rules, more particularly, with regard to the criterion of working experience, the learned counsel has asserted that as admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner, as on 6.9.2008, did not possess the essential experience, he was clearly ineligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. As it is no longer res integra that a candidate to qualify for being considered for selection ought to satisfy the norms of eligibility on the last date of receipt of applications in a process of direct recruitment, the learned Single Judge had fallen in gross error in holding the respondent/writ petitioner to be eligible, he urged. To buttress his pleas, Mr.Kumawat placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheshrao Jangluji Badge Vs. Bhaiyya & Ors., 1991 Supp.(1) SCC 367 , G.Sundareshwararao Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 234 , Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. S.Gopalakrishnan, (2001) 2 SCC 362 , Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr., (2007) 10 SCC 260 , Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (C) No.24020 of 2011) and

¶26

¶27

of a Larger Bench of this Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs. Abhijeet Singh Yadav, 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 295 .

¶28

As against this, Mr.Mehrishi has urged that in absence of any specific requirement in the Rules obligating post academic qualification working experience, the insistence therefor by the Commission is palpably illegal. Dismissing the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008 to be non est in absence of timely publication thereof in the Official Gazette, the learned counsel has argued that the respondent/writ petitioner being fully eligible in terms of the Rules, the learned Single Judge did rightly direct consideration of his case for recruitment, and thus, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. Apart from contending that the appellants having allowed the respondent/writ petitioner to participate in the selection process, they are estopped from pleading his ineligibility, Mr.Mehrishi has insisted that in absence of any amendment in the Rules stipulating post educational qualification working experience, it is impermissible for the Commission to stipulate therefor, as has been held by the learned Single Judge. To reinforce his arguments, Mr.Mehrishi placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.(supra) and Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. (supra) and of the Kerala High Court in Shaila Beegum Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, 1997 (4) SCT 460 .

¶29

¶30

We have duly considered the pleadings on record as well as the documents appended therewith. The arguments advanced have also been appropriately evaluated.

¶31

That the selection process was governed by the provisions of the Rules, is an admitted fact. In terms of Rule 11, a candidate for direct recruitment has to obligatorily comply with the academic and technical qualifications as set out in Schedule I pertaining thereto. For ready reference, the relevant excerpt thereof is extracted hereunder:-

¶32

Name of post Source of Qualification for Direct Recruitment
Recruitment
with percentage
2.Motor 25% by 1. Must have passed Secondary Examination of a
Vehicle Sub- promotion recognized Board; and
Inpector
75% by direct 2. A Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years'
recruitment course) or a diploma in Mechanical Engineering
awarded by the State Board of Technical
Examination (3 years' course)
OR
Any qualification in either of the above disciplines
declared equivalent by the Central Government or
State Government; and
3. Working experience of at least one year in a
reputed Automobile Workshop which undertakes
repairs of both light motor vehicle, heavy goods
vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted
with petrol and diesel engines; and
4. . . . . . . .

¶33

A plain perusal of the above text would demonstrate that the

¶34

working experience, as defined therein, is an essential condition of eligibility.

¶35

Noticeably, the Rules neither do stipulate the working experience

¶36

to be the post academic qualification nor ordain to the contrary. The corrigendum insisting for such working experience to be acquired after

¶37

¶38

obtaining the essential academic qualification therefore, per se cannot be construed to be repugnant to the Rules. It is no longer res integra as has been, amongst others, enunciated in Alka Ojha (supra) and Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs. Abhijeet Singh Yadav (supra) , that a candidate to be eligible in terms of the norms prescribed ought to be possessed thereof, latest on the last date of submission of application forms. In the present case, the cut-off date was 6.9.2008. The pleaded facts demonstrate that the respondent/writ petitioner had worked as apprentice with effect from 1.7.2007 to 10.8.2008 with Roshan Motors Private Limited, Jaipur , on the basis whereof, he claims to have acquired the required working experience of one year. In the face of his averment that he had passed B.E. Automobile Engineering Degree Exam from the Rajasthan University held in June 2008, it cannot be construed that his working experience, as claimed, had been acquired by him after obtaining the resultant degree. That he thus did not have the prescribed working experience of one year after obtaining the prescribed academic qualification is an established fact. There is no overwhelming material as well to prove the contrary. As in our comprehension, the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008 predicating requirement of post academic qualification working experience and compliance of all conditions of eligibility by 6.9.2008 is not contrary to the letter and spirit of the Rules, the inevitable conclusion is that the respondent/writ petitioner, as on that date i.e.6.9.2008, was not eligible to contend for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector.

¶39

¶40

In the authorities cited on behalf of the respondent/writ

¶41

petitioner, such a corrigendum did not figure for scrutiny, and thus, those are distinguishable on facts and are of no assistance to him. It is thus not considered essential to dilate on the contextual facts thereof.

¶42

The Apex Court, in Sheshrao Jangluji Badge(supra) , had observed that normally experience, unless the text otherwise demands, ought to be taken as one after acquisition of minimum qualifications required, and therefore, necessarily would have to be posterior thereto.

¶43

Their Lordships in Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors.(supra) , in more categorical terms, propounded that if in addition to qualification, experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualification and not before obtaining such qualification.

¶44

In the context of this enunciation and in the teeth of the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008, we are of the firm opinion that the respondent/writ petitioner was ineligible on 6.9.2008 to be considered for recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. Having regard to the text of Rule 11 and Schedule I thereto pertaining to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, we are not persuaded to repudiate the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008 to be repugnant thereto. As it is, the nature, relevance and utility of experience contemplated, would not only depend on the type of the post and the duties relatable thereto, but also the academic qualification acquired therefor.

¶45

¶46

In that view of the matter, in absence of any prohibition in the Rules, the insistence for post academic qualification working experience, as mandated by the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008, cannot, in our view, be adjudged to be unwarranted and incompatible with the Rules.

¶47

We find ourselves in respectful disagreement with the conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment and order. To reiterate, in terms of the Rules and the corrigendum dated 18.8.2008, the respondent/writ petitioner, as on 6.9.2008, was ineligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, and thus, the decision to disqualify him is valid in law.

¶48

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The stay application stands disposed of.

¶49

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.

¶50

Skant/-

¶51

All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶52

Shashi Kant Gaur, PA

Chairman R P S C Ajmer v. Ravi Dutt Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman R P S C Ajmer v. Ravi Dutt Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Board Sarwar, Alwar Vs Ram Lal Kheer

Om Metals Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nirmal Nahata and Ors.

Ranjeet Singh Vs K K Pathak

R P S C Ajmer Vs Suman Choudhary

Ghanshyam Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr.Purshottam Nagar Vs Raj Hindi Granth Academy