SUBHASH CHAND Vs. DVB & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by means of this writ petition seeks the relief of being appointed to the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter with the Delhi Vidyut Board. Delhi Vidyut Board has been unbundled and now the successor entity would be a DISCOM as per the unbundling scheme. Writ petition however has not been amended to add the successor entity. Possibly for this reason itself, petition may not be maintainable, however, I am deciding the petition on merits as per the record. The facts of the case are that petitioner applied for appointment for the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter in Delhi Vidyut Board as per the advertisement in Hindustan Times on 01.3.1999. Qualification for the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter included a requirement of ITI certificate in electrical or equivalent trade. Petitioner was called for the interview, was selected and was issued an appointment letter dated 16.5.2000, which is annexed as Annexure -7 to the writ petition. Petitioner however was denied appointment by the impugned order dated 30.8.2000 and which reads as under:

(2.) PETITIONER has therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking appointment By pleading that since eligibility requirement included equivalent trade to an ITI certificate in electrical field, petitioner was qualified because he had an ITI certificate in electronics mechanical.

(3.) THE counter -affidavit filed by the respondent shows that, as per the recruitment rules, the eligibility condition for appointment of an Assistant Electrical Fitter was that the person must have ITI diploma in electrical trade. The expression 'equivalent trade' was however, mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore, the Delhi State Services Selection Board left it to the Delhi Vidyut Board to decide the issue of equivalence.