Bhagvati Lal Mena vs RPSC and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.—Aggrieved of the order dated 11th June, 2012; declining the consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for he was not in possession of the required experience of one year, after the date of acquiring necessary educational qualifications; the petitioner, has instituted the present writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s):--

"(i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 11.6.2012 (Annexure-8) by relaxing the condition No. (2) of Special Note mentioned at page No. 2 of the advertisement regarding obtaining required one year experience only after obtaining educational qualification and in case the petitioner is found otherwise suitable for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector he may be given appointment in pursuance of advertisement Annexure-1.

(ii) Any other relief to the petitioners as the Hon''ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

(iii) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

Briefly, the skeletal material facts essential for adjudication of the controversy raised herein are that the petitioner submitted his candidature for consideration, for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector in response to the advertisement dated 5th December, 2011. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was successful in the written examination. However, his candidature has been declined only on the premise that the petitioner acquired the educational qualifications of ''Diploma in Engineer'' Course on 17th July, 2008. Moreover, the delay, if any, with reference to the educational qualifications and experience was only for a period of one month and thirteen days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphatically argued that the educational qualifications, as contemplated under Clause 6 of the advertisement, required working experience of at least one year in a reputed Automobile Workshop, which undertook repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles, fitted with petrol and diesel engines. Thus, there was no stipulation in the advertisement to the effect that the experience acquired, subsequent to the acquisition of the educational qualifications, would disqualify a candidate or would render him ineligible.

Learned counsel further contended that the condition, as incorporated under Note (2) of Clause 7 of the advertisement, making it mandatory that the experience of one year would be treated valid only after acquisition of the educational qualification, as contemplated under sub-clause (3) of the Educational Qualifications under Clause 6; is arbitrary and unreasonable, which ought not to have been incorporated in the advertisement; and therefore, declining the candidature of the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled propositions of law. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Dutt Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 14854 of 2011), decided on 4th July, 2012.

In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter affidavits resisting the claim staked by the petitioner herein specifically pleading that the advertisement, in no uncertain terms, contemplated a condition that the experience of one year acquired would be valid only if it is gained after acquisition of the essential educational qualifications.

Mr. Punit Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondent number 2 and Mr. Dilip Singh Shekhawat for respondent number 1 - Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short ''Commission''), reiterating the pleaded stand in their counter affidavits while supporting the action of the respondent - Commission, in declining the consideration of the candidature of the petitioner, vehemently argued that the experience shall be considered only after the date of acquisition of the essential educational qualifications; and a condition to that effect was specifically incorporated in the advertisement, as would be reflected from Note (2) of Clause 7 of the advertisement dated 5th December, 2011. The learned counsel have placed reliance on the opinion of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. v. Ravi Dutt Sharma & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Number 696 of 2013), decided on 2nd December, 2013.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

Indisputably, the petitioner after having participated in the recruitment process, being well aware of the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement, has assailed the condition of Note (2) of Clause 7; consequent upon rejection of his candidature by the respondent - Commission for not possessing of the requisite experience of one year.

The controversy raised, in the instant writ application, may not detain this Court in long in view of the opinion of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Dutt Sharma (supra), to which this Court was also a party, wherein the very judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was quashed and set aside in the intra-court appeal aforesaid, holding thus:--

"Noticeably, the Rules neither do stipulate the working experience to be the post academic qualification nor ordain to the contrary. The corrigendum insisting for such working experience to be acquired after 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 v. 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.

In the authorities cited on behalf of the respondent/writ 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.

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.

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."

In view of the factual matrix as available on record, this Court is of firm opinion that the petitioner was ineligible to be considered for recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, and the action of the respondent - Commission in declining consideration of the candidature of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 11th June, 2012, cannot be faulted. The issue raised herein is no more res-integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon''ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Indian Airlines and Others Vs. S. Gopalakrishnan, ; wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:

"4. The respondent has obtained the ITI certificate in June 1994 and he had about five years of experience after obtaining the certificate and diploma in Mechanical Engineering was obtained in April 1996. In any event, it is clear that the experience obtained by him falls short of the requisite qualification. This Court in N. Suresh Nathan and another Vs. Union of India and others, ; Gurdial Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. [1995] 2 SCR 420, has explained the necessity to obtain experience after obtaining the requisite qualification.

When in addition to qualification, experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualification and not before obtaining such qualification. In the case of the respondent, he obtained the ITI certificate in the year 1994 and, therefore, did not possess five years of experience as required under the relevant rule. If his qualification as a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering is taken note of, he has not completed three years of experience as he got the same in April, 1996 and on relevant date he did not possess such qualification. Indeed in prescribing qualification and experience, it is also made clear in the general information instruction at Item No. 6 that "experience will be computed after the date of acquiring the necessary qualifications". Therefore, when this requirement was made very clear that he should have experience only after acquiring the qualification, the view taken by the High Court to the contrary either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench, does not stand to reason."

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application stands closed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

The respondent - Commission is directed to proceed with the selection process and conclude the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. However, in no case later than within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.