SITA RAM Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Beldar with effect from May, 1982 to December, 1983 in the respondent-Board and thereafter he started working as Electrical Fitter. His name finds mention in the seniority list of Electrical Fitters and his date of appointment is shown to be 1.5.1985. He made representation to the Secretary of the respondent-Board on 6.3.1992 seeking regularization as Electrical Fitter. He made another representation on 11.3.1992. However, the respondent-Board decided to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Helper on regular basis vide office order dated 23.2.1993. The petitioner made representation on 17.6.1995 bringing to the notice of the Secretary of the respondent-Board that since he was working as Electrical Fitter on daily wage with effect from 1.12.1985, his case should have been considered for regularization to the post of Electrical Fitter and not as Helper. He did not accept this offer as per contents of Annexure A-6. He made another representation to the Chairman of the respondent-Board on 16.9.1995 for the redressal of his grievance. Case of the respondent-Board, in a nutshell, is that since the petitioner was not possessing essential qualification of ITI as provided under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, his case could not be considered for regularization as Electrical Fitter.

(2.) Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that her client was engaged on daily wage basis as Electrical Fitter with effect from May, 1985 and he was liable to be regularized as Electrical Fitter and not as Helper. She then contended that even, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, a person, who had worked as Helper for a period of six years, was not required to possess qualification of ITI. She lastly contended that assuming, not conceding, that the petitioner was not in possession of essential qualification, the experience gained by her client is a substitute for educational qualification.

(3.) Mrs. Anjula Khajuria has vehemently argued that since the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, he could not be considered for regularization against the post of Electrical Fitter.