AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners here claim to be skilled workers possessing the qualification of matriculation or equivalent and are holders of National Trade Certificate or National Apprenticeship Certificate etc. They claim that they are eligible to be considered for the posts of Lineman advertised by the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') vide its orders CRA Nos. 159/89 and 160/89. The petitioners aver that the Board is not considering their claim for the posts, because they had obtained the requisite certificate by attending the part-time Course, whereas those who have obtained the same certificate by attending the regular course, are being considered as eligible. It is further averred that in response to a clarification sought by the Board, the Government of India has clarified vide its letter dated 19th July 1989 that the certificate awarded to students on passing the examination by attending evening classes is equivalent to the certificate awarded to students on passing the same examination by attending morning classes." In spite of that, the petitioners claim that the Board is not considering them for the posts in question. Challenging the action of the Board as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Board. It has been averred that the qualification for the post of linemen has been fixed by the Board vide its letter dated 23rd/29th Dec., 1988. According to this decision only a person possessing the qualification of Matric or its equivalent with National Apprenticeship Certificate in the trade of Lineman is eligible to be considered. It is averred that after obtaining the National Trade Certificate the candidate has to undergo training for a period of two years, which is known as Apprenticeship under the Indian Apprenticeship Act. After the successful completion of the apprenticeship the candidate is declared as successful in the examination and is awarded the National Certificate. None of the petitioners, it is averred, has got the National Apprenticeship Certificate. Accordingly, it is claimed that the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Lineman. It has also been averred that petitioner Nos 1, 2, 5 and 6 to 10 do not possess the qualification of National Apprenticeship Certificate. The applications of petitioners at serial Nos. 3 and 4 were received after the last date, and therefore, were not considered. The application of petitioner No. 11 does not appear to have been received in the office of the Board. In this premise it is claimed that the petitioners have no right to maintain the present petition.

(3.) A copy of one of the Notices inviting applications has been appended as Annexure P7 with the writ petition. For the post of Lineman following qualifications have been prescribed : "Matric or its equivalent and National Apprenticeship Certificate in the trade of Lineman". In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been categorically averred that the National Apprenticeship Certificate is different from the National Trade Certificate, which the petitioners claim to possess. It has also been pointed out, as noticed above, that the Apprenticeship Certificate is awarded after the candidate has successfully completed the apprenticeship for a period of two years. In paragraph 2 of the Preliminary Objections raised in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been categorically averred that "none of the petitioners had passed the National Apprenticeship Certificate." No replication has been filed to controvert the above position. Apparently none of the petitioners possess the qualifications as mentioned in the advertisement. They were thus not eligible to be considered. As such I find no infirmity in the action of the Board in refusing to consider the petitioners for the post of Lineman.