GNCT of Delhi and Others vs Rahul Dev

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Relying upon paras 19, 20 and 24 of the decision reported as Anil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Delhi and Others, ; and distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Indian Airlines and Others Vs. S.

Gopalakrishnan, , vide impugned decision dated January 23, 2013, interpreting the essential qualifications and experience required to fill up the

post of Instructor (Maths) the Tribunal has held that the respondent was duly qualified as also eligible for the post in question notwithstanding there

being an overlap in the period of experience and the diploma obtained by the respondent. The essential qualifications and experience for the post

were a Matriculation or equivalent degree and a diploma in Mechanical Engineering with one year practical experience in an Engineering

Workshop of repute or a year''s training at the Central Training Institute.

The experience certificate dated August 22, 2007 issued by an Engineering Workshop of repute certified that respondent had been working

with the institute since July 10, 2006, and undisputedly the respondent had obtained a diploma in Mechanical Engineering on June 19, 2007.

As per the petitioner the practical experience of one year had to follow after diploma was obtained.

In Anil Kumar Gupta''s case (supra), following the law declared in the opinion reported as Subhash v. State of Mahrashtra and Ors. , the

Supreme Court was considering a pari-materia provision where essential educational qualification was a degree and experience required was of

two years. It was held that since the Rule did not state that the two years'' experience had to be after degree was obtained, it hardly mattered

whether the experience was before obtaining the degree or the two periods overlapping.

In S. Gopalakrishnan''s case (supra), with reference to the decisions reported as N. Suresh Nathan and another Vs. Union of India and others,

and N. Suresh Nathan and another Vs. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court opined that wherever an additional qualification or

experience was prescribed it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualification.

Suffice would it be for us to note that on the same subject we are finding two views expressed by the Supreme Court, and a third possible view

could be that if the past practice consistently followed was to insist upon experience following acquisition of a degree, on stating and establishing

said fact, the Department could insist that its Rule must be understood to mean that experience had to succeed the degree obtained.

It is settled law that if on a proposition of law two views are possible, a writ court would not substitute the view taken by the Court of first

instance.

It is not the case of the petitioners that in the past the Department had been interpreting the Rule as is propounded by the petitioners.

The view taken by the Tribunal is as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta''s case and notwithstanding there being an

opinion of the Supreme Court which takes a contrary view, we do not interfere with the impugned decision for the reason two views were possible

and the Tribunal had to adopt one. The writ petition is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.