POONA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner after passing his matriculation examination, was selected for one year training of Technical Training Centre, Kakrapar, district Surat (Gujarat) in the Operation, Maintenance and Repair of heavy earth moving equipment for the session 1964-65.After successful completion for the training in the year 1965, the petitioner was awarded a certificate of proficiency by Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, Central Water & Power Commission (Water Wing), New Delhi. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Mechanic temporarily on 29.4.69 to 30.6.69 in the pay scale of Rs. 130.00 by the Chief Underground Water Engineer and Secretary. The petitioner was again appointed temporarily Mechanic (Pump) w.e.f. 27.12.73 and thereafter the petitioner's appointment was regularised w.e.f. 27.12.73 on the recommendation of the Screening Committee and the post was made substantive w.e.f. 1.9.1980 vide order dated 5.1.1981 issued by the Chief Engineer.

(2.) The Rajasthan Civil Service (New Pay Scale) Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') were promulgated by the Governor of Rajasthan on 28.12.69 in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. By the Civil Service (New Pay Scale) Amendment Rules, 1970, the new pay scale for Mechanic II was divided into two categories i.e. pay scale of Rs. 180-425 was prescribed for diploma holders from polytechnic or for equivalent qualification and the pay scale of Rs. 130-300 was prescribed for I.T.I. certificate holders. After promulgation of 1969 Rules, the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs. 130-300 w.e.f. 29.4.69. The petitioner has objected to the fixation of his pay scale in Rs. 130-300. According to the petitioner the certificate of proficiency awarded to him by the Central Water & Power Commission (Water Wing), New Delhi, in the Operation, Maintenance and Repair of heavy earth moving equipment at the Technical Training Centre, Kakrapar, is equivalent for the purpose of recruitment in the subordinate post and service under the Central Government and State Government including the Government of Rajasthan and he should have been fixed in the pay scale of diploma holders.

(3.) It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the petition that Sarv Shri Satya Narain Sahi, Davendra Mohan Sharma, Arjun Singh Chaudhary, Mukann Singh, Arjun Singh S/o Shri Nenu Ram and Kazi Zahur Mohd. along with the petitioner were awarded the certificate of proficiency by the Central Water & Power Commission (Water Wing), New Delhi. In 1965, along with the petitioner all the aforesaid persons were awarded the certificate of proficiency in the same year and in the same session. In case of the aforementioned persons, the respondents have taken, held and recognised the certificate of proficiency as equivalent to diploma in mechanical engineering. From the appointment order issued to Shri Satya Narain Sahi Ex. P/9 and the appointment order in other cases, it is clear that this certificate has been considered, taken, held and recognised as equivalent to the diploma in mechanical engineering by the State of Rajasthan. Paragraph 10 is replied by the respondents contending that the averments mentioned in paragraph 10 of the writ petition are emphatically denied. It is wrong to say that the certificate possessed by the petitioner has been considered equivalent to the diploma in mechanical engineering by the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner be put to strict proof to show that his certificate is equivalent to the diploma in mechanical engineering and has been recognised by the State of Rajasthan at any time. It is further alleged that the certificate issued to the petitioner has no relevance with any of the trades of the department because no earth moving machineries ever existed with this department. It is pertinent to see that there is no denial of the fact that the certificate issued to other persons mentioned above has been treated equivalent by the respondents to that of diploma in mechanical engineering the only thing which has been stated is that the petitioner's certificate shall not be equivalent to that of diploma because the department does not have any earth moving machineries . Once the petitioner is being appointed in the department, it is hardly a ground to differentiate the certificate issued to the petitioner by the Central Water & Power Commissioners (Water Wing), New Delhi, and the certificate issued to the other persons named in the petition, which has been recognised equivalent to the diploma by the respondents, on the ground that certificate issued to the petitioner has no relevance with any of the trade of the department.