Mukesh Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh and two Others

Justice J.K. Maheshwari

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to appoint on the post of Training Officer Grade-III/Driver-cum-mechanic (light motor vehicle) in view of his selection in the Entrance examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board and to grant at par benefit to other similarly situated persons namely Viney Tamrakar. It is the case of the petitioner that he possesses the qualification i.e. Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and the Bachelor of Engineering Degree in the same branch. However, he possesses the essential minimum educational, technical eligibility and also the desirable qualification as per advertisement Annexure P/1 Clause-3.3 thereof for the post to which petitioner has applied. He passed out the test conducted by the Professional Examination Board which is apparent from the document Annexure P./5 i.e. result which was declared as per the direction issued by this Court on 5.4.2005 in WP No. 100/2005. However, he is entitled to be appointed on the post and similar benefit to other person who has also found place in the merit list of unreserved category. In such circumstances, prayer is made to direct the respondents to issue the order of appointment and to extend all benefit as allowed to Viney Tamrakar.

Respondent by filing the reply has stated that the petitioner do not possess the qualification as prescribed in Clause 3.3. though he has passed out the test conducted by the Professional Examination Board. However, on account of not having the requisite qualification, he has not been appointed on the post of Training Officer Grade-III/Driver-cum-Mechanic. It is further stated that mere selection do not confer any right for appointment until and unless the petitioner qualifies the eligibility criteria so specified in the advertisement. In absence of having the eligibility, he is not entitled to get appointment and similar benefit to Viney Tamrakar.

After hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the advertisement, it is apparent that the petitioner had applied for the post of Training Officer Grade-III, Driver-cum-Mechanic (light motor vehicle). The qualification has been prescribed to the said post is reproduced as under:

The petitioner possesses the diploma in Mechanical Engineering as is apparent from the document Annexure P/20 and also passed out the B.E. In Mechanical Engineering. He is having an experience to work in the work shop of the Municipal Corporation Indore, for about three years. As per the qualification prescribed in advertisement for the post it is apparent that the candidate must possess the diploma in Automobile Engineering otherwise, a degree of graduation in any respect and also he has to possess the MOTOR MECHANIC VYASAY ME AKHIL BHARTIYA DASTAKARI PARIKSHA YA RASHTRIA SHISHU PARIKSHA UTRIN. The aforesaid two qualifications is lacking to petitioner in addition to the degree of graduation. However, the essential educational and technical qualification is lacking with the petitioner to get appointment on the post of Training Officer Grade-III/Driver-cum-Mechanic. Thus due to not having requisite qualification for appointment petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit similar to Viney Tamrakar, who possesses the requisite qualification. In absence of having any eligibility to hold the post even after selection of the petitioner and found place in the merit, he is not entitled to be appointed.

At this stage, Shri Dube, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referring various subjects of the mark sheets Annexure P/21 has stated that he is having the subject of Automobile Engineering while has passed out the degree in Mechanical Engineering, therefore, the said subject may be qualified for the purpose of the other qualification prescribed along with the degree in the advertisement Annexure P/1. In this regard it is suffice to observe that the Courts are not the expert and cannot supplement the qualification prescribed by the department for the purpose of eligibility. In such circumstances, the arguments so advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no substance, therefore, liable to be repelled. In view of the foregoing, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for in this petition, hence, it is dismissed, in the facts and circumstances parties to bear their own costs.