AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Joint Director (Recruitment), Employee State Insurance Corporation, vide advertisement dated 28th March, 2009, had invited applications to the post of Plaster Technician. In the advertisement and as per the Recruitment Rules, the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Plaster Technician are as under:
a) 10+2 with Science subject from a recognized Board.
b) Two years Experience in Plaster of Paris Techniques in an Orthopedic department of a recognized hospital/medical Institution.
Respondent No. 1, P.K. Verma, fulfils the twin conditions. He has passed 10+2 examination with Science subject from a recognized Board and also has two years experience in Plaster of Paris techniques in an Orthopedic department of recognized hospitals and medical institutions. However, he was denied appointment on the ground that he had cleared 10+2 examination in November, 1998, whereas his two years experience in Plaster of Paris technique in orthopedic department relates to the period prior to November, 1998. OA No. 1734/2010 filed by the Respondent No. 1 has been rightly allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi by the impugned order dated 25th November, 2010 on the ground that the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement did not prescribe that the experience should have been grained after the candidate has cleared 10+2 examination. The said condition cannot be read into the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement quoted above. There is no such requirement. It does not matter whether the experience is before or after 10+2 examination. It may be noted here that as per the Petitioners themselves, the Respondent No. 1 meets the essential experience requirement as he has worked as a Plaster Technician w.e.f. 3rd July, 1995 to 30th September, 1996 in Kamlesh Medical Centre and had also worked in the plaster room of ESI Hospital, Noida w.e.f. 1st February, 2002 to 30th November, 2003. The Tribunal has recorded that the documents/certificates of experience were submitted by the Respondent No. 1 within the stipulated time.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.