AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Deka, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Gogoi, learned counsel for all the respondents.
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the action of the respondent authorities in not considering their candidature for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U), pursuant to the recruitment process initiated by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, on the ground that the petitioners appeared in the Computer Based Test (CBT) held on 29.09.2024, but despite having participated in the CBT, they were not shortlisted for the subsequent stages of Document Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test when the result was published on 16.12.2024.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had applied for apprenticeship training at the Guwahati Refinery pursuant to advertisement dated 22.10.2021 in the trade of Boiler Attendant. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners appeared in the written examination and were selected and joined as trainees at the Guwahati Refinery in February, 2022. The petitioners thereafter completed two years' apprenticeship training as Trade Apprentice (Boiler Attendant) under the Apprentices Act, 1961/1973 from 11.02.2022 to 11.02.2024.
After completion of the apprenticeship training, provisional certificates were issued to the petitioners wherein the trade was mentioned as “Boiler Attendant”. The provisional certificates further mentioned that the final certificate would be issued by the Board of Practical Training/Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training as per the registration of the apprentices in the concerned portal.
The final Certificates of Proficiency issued by the Board of Practical Training/Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, however, mentioned the subject field as “Bachelor of Science” instead of “Boiler Attendant”. The petitioners had already obtained their respective B.Sc. qualifications prior to undergoing the apprenticeship training. Petitioner No.1 had completed his B.Sc. from Kaziranga University in the year 2021, petitioner No.2 from C.N.B. College, Bokakhat in the year 2019 and petitioner No.3 from Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2021.
The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Refineries and Pipelines Division), vide advertisement dated 20.07.2024, notified/advertised for recruitment of Non-Executive personnel, inviting applications for various posts including Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-202, for 6 (Six) refineries including Guwahati, prescribing the qualification parameters. Insofar as the qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-202, is concerned, the advertisement prescribed, inter alia, a National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler Attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961, with due endorsement of equivalence to the Second-Class Boiler Attendant Certificate of Competency by the competent Boiler Authority of the State of the Refinery Unit for which the candidate had applied. The advertisement further prescribed 31.07.2024 as the cut-off date for the purposes of meeting age criteria and for possession of prescribed qualification and work experience, as applicable. The petitioners applied and participated in the Computer Based Test held on 29.09.2024 for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-202, and secured marks above the prescribed cut-off. However, when the result was published on 16.12.2024, they were not shortlisted for the subsequent stages of Document Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test.
The petitioners have stated that the General Manager (HR), IOCL, Guwahati Refinery, by letters dated 23.10.2024, 25.10.2024 and 28.10.2024, had addressed the Chief Inspector of Boilers, Assam (I/C), requesting endorsement of the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler Trade as equivalent to BCC Second Class in favour of the respective petitioners. The said communications specifically stated that due to a technical error, apprentices in the Boiler trade had been issued certificates in B.Sc. instead of Boiler trade by the National Apprenticeship Portal.
The respondent authorities thereafter addressed another communication dated 01.11.2024 to the Director, Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region, seeking correction of the trade mentioned in the apprenticeship certificates of the petitioners. The said communication also stated that, due to the mistake in the certificates issued by the concerned authorities, the petitioners were facing difficulty in getting the certificates endorsed by the Chief Inspector of Boilers and that they had successfully completed their two-year apprenticeship programme in the Boiler Attendant trade.
The Chief Inspector of Boilers, Assam (I/C), however, by letter dated 20.11.2024, informed petitioner No.1 that the Certificate of Proficiency issued to him under the Apprentices Act, 1961, was in the subject field of “Bachelor of Science” and not “Boiler Attendant” explicitly and, therefore, the certificate could not be endorsed as equivalent to the Second Class Boiler Attendant after adhering to Section 24(2) of the Boiler Attendant Rules, 2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had actually undergone the entire two-year apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade and had successfully completed the same on 11.02.2024. It is contended that the provisional certificates issued to them correctly recorded their trade as “Boiler Attendant” and that the subsequent mention of “Bachelor of Science” in the final Certificates of Proficiency was a technical error in the certificates issued through the concerned portal. Learned counsel further submits that the Director, Board of Practical Training (Eastern Region), by communication dated 07.11.2024, had clarified that the petitioners had successfully completed 24 months' Graduate Apprenticeship in the optional trade of Boiler Attendant at the Guwahati Refinery and that there was no apprenticeship course or training in Bachelor of Science at the Guwahati Refinery.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners had already obtained their B.Sc. qualifications from different universities much prior to undergoing the apprenticeship training and had never undergone any B.Sc. course at the Indian Oil Corporation Limited under the Apprentices Act, 1961. It is contended that there was, therefore, no basis for the final Certificates of Proficiency to describe the subject field as “Bachelor of Science” when the training actually undergone by the petitioners was in the Boiler Attendant trade.
Learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities themselves acknowledged the discrepancy in the certificates and took steps for its rectification. Reference has been made to the letters dated 23.10.2024, 25.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 addressed to the Chief Inspector of Boilers, Assam, as well as the subsequent letter dated 01.11.2024 addressed to the Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region. It is contended that these communications, coupled with the clarification issued by the Board of Practical Training, establish that the petitioners had undergone and completed their apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade and that the discrepancy appearing in the final Certificates of Proficiency was not on account of the training actually undergone by them.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of the error in the issuance of the final Certificates of Proficiency. It is contended that the petitioners had completed the requisite apprenticeship training much before the recruitment process and that the provisional certificates themselves correctly reflected the trade in which they had undergone training. Learned counsel further submits that the delay in issuance of the final Certificates of Proficiency, which came to be issued only on 09.08.2024, cannot be held against the petitioners when their apprenticeship training had already been completed and the marks obtained by them had been uploaded in April, 2024. The petitioners contend that the delay in issuance of the certificates was attributable to the process followed by the respondents in relation to the apprenticeship records and that they ought not to be deprived of consideration on that account.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioners had participated in the CBT held on 29.09.2024 and had secured 62, 66 and 63 marks respectively, against the cut-off of 44 marks, but were nevertheless not called for Document Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test. It is contended that the petitioners are not seeking appointment without undergoing the prescribed selection process, but only an opportunity to participate in the subsequent stages thereof. Having regard to the actual training undergone by the petitioners, the provisional certificates issued by the Guwahati Refinery, the subsequent clarification regarding their apprenticeship training and the steps taken by the respondent authorities for correction of the final certificates, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to have been excluded from the selection process. It is accordingly submitted that the action in not shortlisting the petitioners is liable to be interfered with and appropriate directions may be issued permitting them to participate in the subsequent stages of the recruitment process.
Mr. N. Deka, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the candidature of the petitioners was required to be considered strictly in terms of the eligibility conditions prescribed in the recruitment advertisement. It is submitted that for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code 202, a candidate seeking to rely upon the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler Attendant was required to produce a certificate duly endorsed by the competent Boiler Authority of the State of the Refinery Unit concerned, certifying its equivalence to the Second-Class Boiler Attendant Certificate of Competency. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the last date prescribed for possession of the requisite qualification was 31.07.2024, whereas the Certificates of Proficiency relied upon by the petitioners were issued only on 09.08.2024 and, in the form in which they were issued, did not contain the requisite endorsement of the Boiler Authority.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the recruitment process contemplated a Computer Based Test followed by Document Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test, and that participation in the CBT did not by itself confer eligibility for the subsequent stages. It is submitted that the candidates were required to fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions within the period stipulated in the advertisement and that their candidature was subject to verification of the requisite documents. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the final Certificates of Proficiency were not issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It is stated that the petitioners had undergone their apprenticeship training when the NATS 1.0 portal was in operation and that the particulars furnished in the portal were those of the apprentices, with the employer establishment having access only to the information available to it. The marks obtained in the apprenticeship training had been uploaded in April, 2024, whereas the final Certificates of Proficiency were issued thereafter by the concerned authority.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the discrepancy in the Certificates of Proficiency arose in the certificates issued by the concerned authority, wherein the trade was not reflected as Boiler Attendant. It is submitted that letters dated 23.10.2024, 25.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 were thereafter addressed to the Chief Inspector of Boilers, Assam (I/C), seeking endorsement of the National Apprenticeship Certificates in the Boiler trade as equivalent to BCC Second Class. It is further submitted that by letter dated 01.11.2024 addressed to the Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region, correction of the certificates was also sought. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said subsequent correspondence, however, could not alter the eligibility position as on the cut-off date prescribed in the recruitment advertisement.
Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the contract registration forms relied upon by the petitioners in their additional affidavit. It is submitted that the said forms are dated 03.12.2024 and relate to registrations in the NAPS portal, whereas the apprenticeship training undergone by the petitioners at the Guwahati Refinery had been completed under the NATS 1.0 portal. It is submitted that the particulars and registration details appearing in the subsequent documents are different from those relating to the apprenticeship training undergone by the petitioners at the Guwahati Refinery and that the subsequent registration, therefore, cannot establish possession of the prescribed qualification as on 31.07.2024.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the marks obtained by the petitioners in their apprenticeship training had already been uploaded in April, 2024 and that there was no delay on the part of the Guwahati Refinery in uploading the same. It is further submitted that the NATS 1.0 portal was subsequently taken offline and was finally shut down after 31.03.2025, and therefore the precise date of uploading of the marks is no longer retrievable. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the role of the employer establishment was confined to the matters within its control and that the issuance of the final Certificates of Proficiency was by the concerned authority. The discrepancy appearing in the final certificates, therefore, could not be treated as a failure on the part of the respondent authorities to upload the marks or as a basis for treating the petitioners as eligible contrary to the conditions of the advertisement.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that, irrespective of the fact that the petitioners had completed their apprenticeship training prior to the cut-off date, the qualification relied upon by them for the purpose of the recruitment process had to be established in the manner prescribed in the advertisement and within the period stipulated therein. The Certificates of Proficiency relied upon by the petitioners were issued only on 09.08.2024 and, besides being subsequent to the cut-off date of 31.07.2024, did not contain the requisite endorsement of equivalence by the competent Boiler Authority. It is accordingly submitted that neither the subsequent correspondence for correction or endorsement of the certificates nor the petitioners' participation in the CBT and their securing marks above the prescribed cut-off could cure the deficiency in eligibility. Learned Senior Counsel accordingly submits that the petitioners were not entitled to be shortlisted for the subsequent stages of the recruitment process and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.
The petitioners had undergone apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade at the Guwahati Refinery. The provisional certificates issued after completion of the training recorded the trade as “Boiler Attendant”. The final Certificates of Proficiency, however, issued on 09.08.2024, mentioned the subject field as “Bachelor of Science”. The subsequent correspondence placed on record shows that steps were taken for obtaining the requisite endorsement from the Boiler Authority and for correction of the trade mentioned in the certificates.
The fact that the petitioners had undergone apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade is therefore not in dispute from the materials placed before the Court. The correspondence dated 23.10.2024, 25.10.2024 and 28.10.2024, as also the communication dated 01.11.2024, shows that the discrepancy in the certificates was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities and that steps were taken for its correction. The communication dated 07.11.2024 issued by the Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region, also records the position regarding completion of the apprenticeship training by the petitioners in the optional trade of Boiler Attendant. The Chief Inspector of Boilers, Assam (I/C), however, by communication dated 20.11.2024, declined to endorse the certificate of petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the subject field mentioned therein was “Bachelor of Science” and not “Boiler Attendant”.
The aforesaid circumstances explain the grievance of the petitioners regarding the certificates issued to them. The issue, however, cannot be decided only with reference to the fact that the petitioners had undergone the apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade. The recruitment in question was governed by the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, and the candidature of the petitioners was required to be examined with reference to the eligibility requirements prescribed therein.
An advertisement was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Refineries and Pipelines Division) on 20.07.2024 for recruitment to various posts of Non-Executive personnel, including Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-202, for 6 (Six) refineries including Guwahati. For the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-202, the prescribed eligibility criteria included possession of a National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler Attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961, duly endorsed as equivalent to the Second-Class Boiler Attendant Certificate of Competency by the competent Boiler Authority of the State of the Refinery Unit for which the candidate had applied. The advertisement further stipulated 31.07.2024 as the cut-off date for possession of the prescribed qualification and work experience.
In the present case, the final Certificates of Proficiency relied upon by the petitioners were issued only on 09.08.2024. Thus, on the date prescribed in the recruitment process, the certificates relied upon by the petitioners had not been issued. Further, the certificates in the form in which they were issued did not contain the requisite endorsement of equivalence by the competent Boiler Authority. The subsequent correspondence seeking correction of the certificates or obtaining the requisite endorsement was also after the prescribed cut-off date.
The question as to whether eligibility for appointment is to be determined with reference to the date prescribed in the recruitment process has been considered by the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168. The relevance of the prescribed date for determining whether a candidate possessed the requisite qualification was recognised in the said decision. The principle was thereafter considered in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that eligibility has to be determined with reference to the date prescribed for the purpose and that a qualification acquired after the relevant date cannot ordinarily be taken into consideration for making a candidate eligible.
The same principle was reiterated in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58. The Supreme Court held that where the recruitment advertisement prescribes a particular date for possession of the requisite qualification, the candidate must satisfy the prescribed requirement on that date and subsequent acquiring of the qualification cannot be relied upon to make an otherwise ineligible candidate eligible. The date prescribed in the recruitment process cannot, therefore, be displaced merely because the candidate acquires the qualification at a later stage.
The aforesaid position was again considered by the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. v. Dharminder Singh, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491. In that case, the advertisement dated 17.07.2018 prescribed matriculation as the essential qualification and an ITI qualification in the prescribed trade as the desirable qualification. The last date for submission of applications was 18.08.2018. The candidate did not possess the technical qualification on that date and acquired the same only on 19.12.2018. Although he had acquired the qualification by the date of interview, the Supreme Court held that the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised was the last date for submission of the application. The Supreme Court also rejected the contention that the candidate had appeared in the examination for the technical qualification before the prescribed date, observing in substance that undergoing the process for acquiring the qualification could not substitute the requirement of possessing the qualification within the stipulated period.
The aforesaid decisions make it clear that the eligibility of a candidate is to be assessed with reference to the date prescribed in the recruitment process. The cut-off date is intended to ensure that all candidates are assessed on the basis of the same eligibility requirements as they stood on the date fixed by the recruiting authority. Consequently, a qualification acquired or a document issued after the prescribed date cannot ordinarily be taken into account for establishing eligibility, unless the terms of the recruitment process themselves permit such subsequent acquisition. In the present case, therefore, the petitioners' eligibility has to be examined with reference to 31.07.2024, being the date prescribed in the advertisement.
In the present case, the petitioners had admittedly completed their apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade before the cut-off date. However, the final Certificates of Proficiency relied upon by them were issued only on 09.08.2024, after the cut-off date of 31.07.2024. Moreover, the certificates as issued did not contain the requisite endorsement of equivalence by the competent Boiler Authority. The subsequent steps taken for correction of the certificates and for obtaining the endorsement cannot retrospectively alter the position as it stood on 31.07.2024.
The submission that the petitioners ought not to suffer for the discrepancy appearing in the final Certificates of Proficiency also cannot, by itself, result in a direction to disregard the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement. The materials do indicate that the discrepancy was noticed and that steps were taken thereafter for its correction. Nevertheless, the Court is required to apply the eligibility condition governing the recruitment process in the manner in which it was prescribed.
The fact that the petitioners participated in the Computer Based Test and secured marks above the prescribed cut-off also does not alter the position. Clearing the CBT could only enable a candidate who otherwise fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions to proceed to the subsequent stages of the selection process. Participation in the CBT cannot dispense with the requirement of possessing the prescribed qualification within the period stipulated in the advertisement.
The subsequent contract registration forms relied upon by the petitioners also cannot assist them in establishing eligibility as on the relevant date. Those documents are dated 03.12.2024 and relate to subsequent registrations in the NAPS portal, whereas the apprenticeship training at the Guwahati Refinery was under the NATS 1.0 portal. The subsequent documents, therefore, cannot establish possession of the qualification in the form prescribed by the recruitment process as on 31.07.2024.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners had actually undergone apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade and that the discrepancy appearing in the final Certificates of Proficiency was not shown to have arisen from any change in the trade in which the petitioners had undergone training. The subsequent correspondence also shows that the discrepancy was noticed and that steps were taken for correction. These circumstances may explain the predicament in which the petitioners have found themselves. They cannot, however, have the effect of extending the cut-off date prescribed in the recruitment advertisement or of treating the certificates issued on 09.08.2024 as though they had been issued on or before 31.07.2024.
The relief sought by the petitioners is for permitting them to participate in the subsequent stages of the selection process. Such relief, however, cannot be granted without treating them as eligible notwithstanding the date on which the prescribed certificates were issued and the absence of the requisite endorsement as on the relevant date. The performance of the petitioners in the CBT, therefore, cannot confer upon them a right to proceed to Document Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test contrary to the eligibility condition contained in the advertisement.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the decision of the respondent authorities in not shortlisting the petitioners for the subsequent stages of the recruitment process.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.