STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PIAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) A very short point arises for our consideration in this case and that is relating to the interpretation of the two years experience requirement as contemplated in H.P. Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training Department Recruitment and promotion Rules, 1987 for the post of Group Instructor/ Foreman. Under the heading Minimum educational & other qualification required for direct recruits", the following has been prescribed; - (i) Matric with Science & Math from recognised University/Board or equivalent, (ii) Three years Diploma in Engg. From a recognised State Board or Technical Education or equivalent, (iii) Two years experience in an Industrial Training Institution and or in reputed Industrial concern. ESSENTIAL. Knowledge of customs and manner and dialects of H.P. suitability for appointment in particular condition prevailing in Himachal Pradesh."

(3.) Since admittedly in this case, respondent No.1 even though possessed academic qualification of Matric with Science and Math and also three years Diploma in engineering from a recognised Institution as provided for in the 1987 Rules, in so far as the requirement of two years experience in an Industrial Training Institution and/or in a reputed industrial concern was concerned, the admitted case of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was that this experience of two years had not been gained by him after he had obtained the aforesaid academic qualification of three years Diploma in Engineering in as much as this experience was obtained by him before he had obtained the academic qualification. Because the petitioners found respondent No.1 ineligible for consideration for direct recruitment on the ground that the 1987 Rules stipulated and require that two years experience should have been obtained after three years Diploma qualification, respondent No,1 approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment allowed the Original Application No. 935 of 2002 and issued a specific direction to the petitioners to offer appointment to respondent No.1 in terms of recommendations made by the H.P. Subordinate Selection Board.