KULDIP SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Department of Industrial Training Punjab, invited applications for 16 posts of Electricians, by advertisement which appeared in the daily Tribune dated December 3, 1969. The requisite qualifications for the post were stated as under :-

(2.) The petitioner possessed all the qualifications stated in the advertisement and applied for the post. He was not selected after the interview. Respondents 3 and 5 to 10 were selected. It has been stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualifications stated in the advertisement and was wrongly selected. Another vague allegation has been made that many selected candidates did not possess the necessary qualifications but no particulars thereof have been stated in the petition. Written statement has been filed by respondent No. 2, in which the selection of respondents No. 3 to 5 and 10 and rejection of the petitioner by the Departmental Selection Committee have been justified.

(3.) In the return filed by respondent No. 1, it has been stated that the condition of C.T.I. (Central Training Institute) training, as qualification in the advertisement had to be relaxed under the orders of the competent authority as it had been included erroneously. In a many trades C.T.I. training did not even exist and in other trades, the C.T.I. training had recently been stated. Further, as per the qualifications and norms laid down by the Government of India, who controls the training policy of Craftsmen Training Scheme, C.T.I. training is not an essential qualification at the time of initial recruitment. Hence it was an error which was rectified later on under the order of the competent authority. According to this return, the C.T.I. training qualification was relaxed for the reasons given above. But admittedly no advertisement was issued stating that it was not necessary to possess that qualification or that the competent authority or the Selection Committee would have the right to relax any of the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. Admittedly, the petitioner possessed the qualification of C.T.I. training and, therefore, it cannot be said that the persons possessing that qualification were not available. In the return it has also not been stated that the persons possessing that training in the Electrician trade were not available or that that training was not being imparted in that trade. To me it appears that respondent No. 3, who did not possess the requisite qualifications, was selected as a matter of favouritism and for his sake the qualification was relaxed. As far back as October 8, 1969, I had held in Atam Parkash Mohan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra,1970 SLR 16, that :