AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.F. Saidaiiha, J.—Heard petitioner''s learned advocates. Heard respondents'' learned advocate.
The petitioner had applied for a post in the KSRTC and one of the requirements was that he was required to have five years'' experience in the repair of motor vehicles. The petitioner contends that he passed his examination in September 1988, but that as per the certificates produced by him on and from 1.6.1988, the petitioner was working as a mechanic and that therefore, merely because part of his experience was prior to the declaration of his results and acquisition of the qualification, that it cannot be omitted from consideration. The respondents have seriously assailed the petitioner''s certificate which is Annexure ''D'' to the petition which certificate is on the letter head of R. R. Motor Driving School and which reads as follows :
"I certify that I, C. H. Suresh (Diploma in Automobile Engineering) has been running the Work Shop & R. R. Motor Driving School successfully for the past one year i.e., from 22.7.1992 to till now
Sd/-"
The respondents'' contention is that even assuming that the petitioner is running a motor driving school, that this would not qualify him for contending that he is experienced in the repair of motor vehicles during that period of time. Secondly, they seriously assail the fact that the petitioner has issued a certificate to himself. In response to this objection, petitioner''s learned advocate contends that it is a requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act that a motor driving school is required to also have a work shop and that this presupposes the fact that he was not only running the work shop, but was working there. Secondly, he contends that there is no harm in the petitioner issuing a certificate to himself in so far as he was the Principal of that institution and if he was working and gaining experience in his own institution, it is perfectly in order for him to issue the certificate to himself.
To my mind, as far as both these arguments are concerned, they are totally and completely unacceptable. Firstly, the factum of whether the driving school in fact has a work shop or not is something that has not really been established. More importantly however, even assuming that such a work shop was in existence, it is too farfetched to expect this Court to accept that the Principal of the workshop-cum-motor driving school was himself doing the job of repairing the motor vehicles during that period of time. I do concede that this is not impossible, but if that was the position, the least that the petitioner ought to have done was to have got some responsible outside authority to have certified this in which case, there would have been a greater degree of credibility to the certificate. It is well-settled law that when a certificate is required to be produced, that the document in question must bear witness to a certain state of affairs which presupposes that some authority other than the person who is being certified, must issue the certificate after a responsible assessment of the situation. It is wholly and totally impermissible therefore, for any individual to issue a certificate to himself or about himself and to thereafter, expect that this certificate should be accepted by a public authority.
On facts therefore, this is a case in which the petitioner''s requirements do fall short of the stipulations in the rule.
Petitioner''s learned advocate has submitted that as far as his experience from June 1988 is concerned, that a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1854 and 1855/81 in a judgment dated 9.6.1986 had occasion to hold that where a certain time frame is prescribed for the experience requirements, that if it can be demonstrated that the experience extended to a period even prior to the acquisition of the degree, that this will have to be taken into account. In the present case, it is not the petitioner''s experience in the year 1988 and 1989 that have been called into question, but it is really the last period where he has issued a certificate to himself that is seriously disputed. The decision of the Corporation under these circumstances cannot be found fault with.
The petition accordingly fails and stand disposed of. Interim order to stand vacated.