Pratap Kumar Sahu vs Orissa Administrative Tribunal and Others

Heard Mr. Manoj Mishra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.C. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 6 and the Learned Additional Government Advocate for Opposite Parties 2 to 5.

By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned judgment and Order dated 28.6.2002 passed in O.A. No. 2496(C) of 1993 by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal which was filed by Opposite Party No. 6 against the petitioner challenged his appointment to the post of Wireman (Instructor).

The brief facts of the case are that a requisition was sent to the District Employment Officer to sponsor a panel of 15 candidates each for different trades. The requisition was sent by the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Phulbani. The qualifications for the selection to the post of Wireman (Instructor) were fixed as Matric and NTC/NAC. The petitioner was consequently declared selected to the said post in the institution, i.e., Industrial Training Institute, Phulbani. Thereafter he was given appointment on 22.12.1992. Opposite Party No. 6 had alleged before the Tribunal that in the written test and career assessment he had got 57 marks while the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition had got only 44 marks but in spite of that the petitioner was given appointment.

In the counter affidavit, a plea was taken that since no candidate was having NAC qualification, therefore, the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee. It was, however, not denied that Opposite Party No. 6 had got 57 marks while the petitioner got only 44 marks by the Selection Committee. It was also contended by opposite party No. 6 before the Tribunal that the Director, Technical Education had no jurisdiction to fix qualification of his own as the Government of India vide its Training Manual for Industrial Training Institute and Centres have fixed qualifications for Vocational Instructor/Craft Instructor as. Matric or its equivalent with Maths and Science and National Trade Certificate or National Apprenticeship Certificate or Apprenticeship in an industrial concern for a period not less than three years or persons from Defence Services having not less than five years service in the trade or Diploma in the appropriate branch in the trade concerned. Further, additional 10 marks for NAC qualification was given by the Selection Committee to the petitioner in absence of which he would have got only 34 marks while Opposite Party No. 6 was awarded 57 marks without having NAC qualification. The Tribunal relying upon the case of Pratap Chandra Mohanty v. State of Orissa and Ors.; 1995 (1) ATT 213 in which three Member Bench of the OAT has observed that although the D.T.E. & T is the Heads of the Department, he is not entitled to formulate and prescribe the service conditions, allowed the Original Application filed by Opposite Party No. 6 and quashed the appointment letter of the petitioner and the opposite parties were directed to consider the case of the applicant (Opposite Party No. 6 herein) for appointment to the post of Wireman (Instructor) if he is otherwise found suitable/ eligible after completing all the procedural paraphernalia.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Bhubaneswar, in which it has been, inter alia, stated that NAC is an additional qualification for appointment to the post of Wireman (Instructor) and not a condition precedent for appointment to the said post. It has also been stated therein that the syllabus prescribed by the Government of India is to be followed which governs 75 per cent practical and 25 per cent theory marks and the instructor has to impart practical knowledge to a trainee as per the syllabus. Therefore, the appointing authority has no jurisdiction to modify the qualifications already prescribed at the Government level. In the instant case, the Government of India has prescribed a particular syllabus as well as the minimum requisite qualification which were being followed by the Government of Orissa and hence there was no scope for the Director, Technical Education and Training, Orissa to supersede the norms prescribed by the Government of India.

In view of the above, we find no infirmity, impropriety and manifest error of law in the impugned order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

However, it goes without saying that since the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 i.e., about 13 years ago and he has also become over aged, therefore, we hope that Opposite Parties 2 to 4 will consider his adjustment against any other similar post/vacancy on the basis of his qualification and experience. There is no order as to costs.