R A PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. L.A.G.P. Mr. Sompura waives service of Rule for respondents 1 & 2 L.A. Mr. M. D. Pandya waives service of Rule for respondent No. 3. Looking to the importance of the matter with the consent of the parties it is finally heard and disposed of today.

(2.) The importance relates to the examination to be held under the Indian Boiler Act 1923 and Rules framed thereunder. To be precise the Rules are the Gujarat Boiler Attendants Rules 1956 as amended from time to time. The aforesaid Rules are under Section 29 of the Indian Boilers Act. The Board of examination under Rule 8 and other Rules that followed is empowered to hold examination of competency test designated as 1st Class and 2nd Class. Rules 27 provides for form of application. Rule 28 enjoins upon the candidates to produce satisfactory testimonials and essential statements as per Rule 29. After receipt of the application in Form A accompanied by the testimonials if they are found to be doubtful as per Rule 43 the Secretary of the Board of Examiners can get it verified and if the certificates are found to be false its consequence will follow as per Rule 34. Rule 36 provides for age and training of 2nd class and Rule 37 provides for age and training of 1st Class candidates. These are the two rules which are material for our purpose as they prescribe the eligibility criteria for the respective examination. The grievance of the petitioners in the petition is that petitioner No. 1 whose certificate of experience is at page 9 has been denied admission to 1st Class boiler examination and so is petitioner No. 2 as per page 10 and the remaining petitioners for Second Class Boiler Competency Examination whose certificates of experience are produced at pages 11 to 22 have been also wrongly denied admissions to the respective examination. According to the petitioner this decision has been taken by respondent No. 2 the Chief Boiler Inspector who is the Chairman of the said Board of Examination and the certificate in question in respect of different petitioners was issued by respondent No. 3 Superintending Engineer and his colleagues the details of which are to be found in the respective certificate.

(3.) The State submitting its case through L.A.G.P. Mr. Sompura in my opinion has fairly stated that the Board of Examiner its Chairman and Secretary all insisted on the compliance of Rules 36 and 37 respectively for Second Class Competency Examination and First Class Compentency Examination. To this L.A. Mr. Bhatt appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Pandya appearing for respondent No. 3-all agree. Accordingly therefore on all the sides there is unanimity that the requirement of Rules 36 & 37 must be complied with. However there is a saving Clause by way of Rule 38 whereby the State Government may empower the Chairman of the Board notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Rules 36 & 37 to admit in his discretion any candidate to an examination under those Rules if he so thinks fit. For the time being we are not concerned with this Rule. Coming back to those Rules 36 & 37 they prescribe the requirement of age as well as experience criteria. Now with regard to this only if we read along with it Rules 27 & 28 it is to be found that experience can be certified under Rule 28 and according to the petitioners that is precisely what they have complied with as per the certificates produced at pages 9 & 10 for Class-I and Class-II 11 to 22. The State has resisted with the aforesaid submission made by L.A. and in my opinion rightly so. However the stand as disclosed from the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 2 is little different. It may be described as little different but so far as the petitioners are concerned it. is very substantial and looking to the peculiar relationship as contemplated by these Rules between respondents 2 & 3 this difference is very vital. The reason for this observation is that respondent No. 3 is not the only authority who has issued the certificates as could be seen on going through each of them but the certificates are signed by the Superintending Engineer respondent No. 3 and also there is signature appearing on the certificate that of the Executive Engineer of the Boiler Department and also bearing one more signature of the Industrial Relation Officer or the Deputy General Manager of the concerned Thermal Power Station.