DHAN RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two civil writ petition Nos. 10307 of 1993 and 12647 of 1993 as identical question of law has been raised in both these petitioners. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 10307 of 1993 titled Dhan Raj Singh vs State of Haryana and another.

(2.) The petitioner has sought issuance of writ of mandamus against respondent No. 2 Haryana Public Service Commission, Chandigarh to consider his case for the post of Works Manager. Haryana Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') issued an advertisement inviting applications for temporary Works Manager Class-II, Transport Department, Haryana, vide advertisement.Annexure P-l stipulating there in that person should be in between age of 21 to 35 years as on October 12,1992 and possesses requisite qualification i.e. (1) Degree in Mechanical or Automobile Engineering from a recognised University, and (ii) Hind upto Matric standard. This petitioners in both these writ petitions applied in pursuance to this advertisement but their candidature has been rejected on the ground that none of them possessed the degree in Mechanical or Automobile Engineering from a recognised University which has consequently impelled them to knock the door of this Court. The petitioner with a view, to prove that he possess the requisite qualification as envisaged by advertisement, annexure P-l, made mention of the fact that he had successfully completed the certificate in Sections A and B of the Associate Membership Examination of Institution of Engineers (India) in Mechanical Engineering which institution is recognised by the Government of India and this qualification is equivalent to Bachelor of Engineering and so a request was made to reconsider his case afresh. In support of his above assertion, reference was made to a letter issued by the Government of Haryana to all the Heads of Departments informing the various departments that degrees and diploma etc. which are recognised by the Government of India are deemed to have been recognised by the Haryana Government. Even the subsequent representation did not find favour with respondent No. 2, hence the present petition.

(3.) Pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the Court, respondent No. 2 put in appearance and filed written statement. By way of preliminary objection, respondent No. 2 has asserted that the present petition is not maintainable as there has been no infringement of any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner. Even otherwise, advertisement specifically stipulated that the persons possessing degree in Mechanical or Automobile Engineering from a recognised university are required to apply for the post advertised. Since the petitioner did not possess the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement, his candidature was rightly not considered by the Commission. Replying on merits, respondent in addition to the preliminary objection further averred that in the advertisement equivalent qualification is not envisaged i.e. even if the petitioner possesses an equivalent qualification than the one advertised, the same would not qualify him for consideration for recruitment to the post advertised.