NAND LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 3 i.e. Chief Works Manager, Northern Railways, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar, advertised various posts, including 19 posts of Apprentice Welder and the last date for receipt of the applications was fixed as 28.10.2004. According to the advertisement, each and every candidate was required to attach the attested copies of testimonials, including the I.T.I. Trade passed certificate. The petitioner being eligible for the said post, applied for the same. Respondents prepared a list of the successful candidates on the basis of merit, which was also displayed on the notice board of respondent No. 3. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondents No. 4 to 16 and 18 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh by filing the O.A. No. 247/HR of 2006 on the ground that they had not passed the requisite ITI course on the last date of receipt of the applications i.e. 28.10.2004, for the said post, which he alleged to be the cut off date for acquiring the eligibility. The aforesaid O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.07.2007 (Annexure P-5). The present writ petition is, therefore, filed, seeking quashing of the order dated 20.07.2007 passed by the Tribunal with further prayer to appoint the petitioner to the post of Apprentice Welder.

(2.) The solitary argument raised by the petitioner is based on the advertisement, copy whereof was appended to the O.A filed by the petitioner in the Tribunal as Annexure A-3, which find mentions that all application forms should reach in the office on 28.10.2004 up to 5.00 p.m., and that application forms reached after this date will not be taken into consideration. Every candidate was required to attach the attested copy of his photo, I.T.I. passed certificate etc. and in case, the required documents were not attached, the application form was liable to be rejected. It was argued that the respondents have made the appointment up to serial No. 24 in the selection list by ignoring the petitioner, whose name was figured at serial No. 21 and the respondents have been arbitrary and illegally appointed respondents No. 4 to 6, 16 and 18 in spite of the fact that they had passed their respective Trade prior to the cut off date i.e. 28.10.2004. It was further stated that this was evident from the I.T.I. Certificate of respondent No. 6 (Bhushan Saini), which shows that his result was declared only on 22.12.2004, i.e. much after the cut off date fixed for submission of the application forms for the post in question. Similarly, certificate (Annexure A-10, attached with the rejoinder before the Tribunal) of respondent No. 18 (Rajeev Kumar) also shows that he had passed his I.T.I. in November, 2004.

(3.) After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the relevant documents, appended to the petition, we do not find any merit in the submission. Trade Certificate of Bhushan Saini (Annexure P-6) as relied upon by the petitioner, has been perused by us, which clearly shows that respondent No. 6 (Bhushan Saini) passed the examination in the prescribed trade in May, 2004. However, the training period was undertaken by respondent No. 6 from August, 2003 to July, 2004. Hence, the candidates had admittedly cleared their prescribed examination in July, 2004, itself, i.e. much before the last date of receipt of the applications by respondent No. 3. However, the said certificate was not available at the relevant time, and the same was issued only on 22.12.2004. It has not been denied that the respondents had obtained approval of the competent authority to allow them to apply for the same subject to the condition that they shall produce their requisite I.T.I. Trade certificate prior to their appointment. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondents were not having the requisite qualification on the last date of receipt of the applications, is incorrect.