High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 11 J&K CK 0018

Ajay Kumar vs UT Of J&K And Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 8 November 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J · Puneet Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 2264 Of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous No. 8043 Of 2021, Cav No. 1681 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 411 words
1.

The petitioner challenges the judgement and order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu, whereby the selection and appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Operator, Divisional Cadre Jammu has been quashed.

Briefly stated the material facts are as under:-

2.

The petitioner came to be selected as an Assistant Operator, which selection came to be challenged by respondent No. 4 herein. The ground of challenge was that the petitioner herein did not satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed by the advertisement notice.

As per the advertisement notice, the eligibility condition prescribed was "Matric with certificate of apprenticeship in the Trade from a press of repute." Instead of a certificate of apprenticeship, the petitioner had produced an experience certificate, which reads as under:-

"Experience Certificate

It is certified that Mr. Ajay Kumar, S/o Sh. Duni Chand, R/o Dungara, Teh - Billawar, Distt. Kathua is working in our organization for the last three years as a Machine Operator (Printing) w.e.f. 2008 to June, 2011. He is very Expert in Running the Printing Machine. His work and conduct remain satisfactory during the period he worked in our organization."

3.

The Tribunal allowed the petition, challenging the selection of the petitioner herein on the ground that the certificate produced by the petitioner was just an experience certificate and not an apprenticeship certificate, which is given by an authority under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and not by private individuals.

4.

A bare perusal of the advertisement notice prescribing the eligibility conditions would make it clear that in fact what was required was not an experience certificate but an apprentice's certificate. The method of issuance of certificates of apprenticeship is regulated as per the Apprentices Act, 1961 and in particular Section 21, which envisages grant of a certificate only after the completion of the period of training as an apprentice and after appearance in a test to be conducted by the national council or any such agency authorized by the Central Government, to determine the proficiency in the designated trade, in which the apprentice has undergone apprenticeship training. The certificate can only be issued by the concerned regional board and none else.

5.

Having considered the matter in detail, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu.

6.

Be that as it may, this petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application.