AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. K. Sharma, J.—Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. B. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondentCorporation.
The petitioner who was given offer of appointment for the post of Jr. Assistant Technician (Electrical) and was working as a trainee against the said post, under the respondentCorporation, is aggrieved by Annexure P6 memorandum dated 24.3.2010 by which the said offer of appointment made in his favour by order dated 13.1.2010 has been cancelled on the ground of nonpossessing the requisite qualification in the particular trade in terms of the advertisement dated 22.5.2009, (AnnexureP/1 to the writ petition).
By the aforesaid Annexure P/1, among others, the post of Jr. Asstt. Technician (Elect.) was advertised. The Educational/professional qualification prescribed in the said advertisement was as follows:
"Matric with science and valid Electrical Trade Certificate of Competency as Electrical Supervisor"
In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner offered his candidature and he was selected for the said post pursuant to a selection conducted for the purpose. Thereafter by AnnexureP/2, Memorandum dated 13.1.2010, the petitioner was offered the post of Jr. Asstt. Technician (Electrical) with stipulation that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment.
It appears that pursuant to the said offer of appointment, the petitioner having accepted the same, he was sent for some training and while he was undergoing the said training, he was issued the Annexure P3 letter dated 10.2.2010 asking him to furnish the "Trade Certificate in Electrical Trade" by 17.00 hrs. of 11.2.2010. Thus the petitioner was given hardly any time to produce the said certificate. Approach being made by the petitioner, time was extended and thereafter, the petitioner submitted all the certificates including the Trade Certificate in Electrical Trade indicated in the aforesaid letter dated 10.2.2010. All those certificates were submitted by the petitioner by letter dated 15.2.2010.
The petitioner had annexed copies of the certificates along with the said letter dated 15.2.2010 which included the (i) Certificate of Matric with Science; (ii) Certificate of competency in supervising electrical installation work and (iii) National Trade Certificate in the trade of wireman. Along with the said certificates, the petitioner also enclosed the certificate dated 11.4.2002 issued by the Deputy Director, Industrial Training Institute, Indranagar, Agartala and another certificate dated 20.2.2010 issued by the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Indranagar. For ready reference, the said two certificates are quoted below:
"To Whom it may Concern This is to certify that the ''WIREMAN'' trade of I.T.I, under DGE&T, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India is an Electrical Trade. This is of two years duration.
Sd/11.4.02
Deputy Director Industrial Training Institute Indranagar, Agartala To Whom it may Concern This is to certify that the ''Wireman'' Trade of Industrial Training Institute under DGE&T, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India is an Electrical Trade. This is of two years duration.
Sd/
20.2.10
Principal
Industrial Training Institute Indranagar, Agartala."
After the aforesaid development, the petitioner by his AnnexureP/5 letter dated 24.3.2010 addressed to the Manager (HR), ONGC, Tripura made request for confirmation of his recruitment in the post of Jr. Asstt. Technician (Electrical). However, on the same date, i.e. 24.3.2010, the respondentCorporation issued the AnnexureP/6 impugned Memorandum dated 24.3.2010, which reads as follows:
"Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited HIER, Tripura Asset Agartala799014 No. AGT/HRER/R&P/1050/JAT (ELET) Date: 24.3.2010 MEMORANDUM
Whereas an offer of appointment for the post of Jr. Asstt. Technician (Electrical, was issued in favour of Shri Rajesh Banik, S/O Shri Naresh Chandra Banik, Dhaleswar, West Tripura799007, vide this Office Memorandum No. AGT/HRER/R&P/l050 dated 13th Jan., 2010.
Whereas, one of the condition of the said offer was that the appointment will be subject to production of original certificates/ testimonials in support of qualification as prescribed under ONGC Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations 1980.
Whereas, the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Jr. Asstt. Technician (Electrical) is Matric with Science and Trade Certificate in Electrical Trade along with Certificate of Competency as Electrical Supervisor.
And whereas Shri Banik was advised vide this office letter No. AGT/HRER/RP/1050/JAT (Elect) dated 10th February, 2010 to produce the requisite trade certificate on or before 11th February, 2010, clearly stating therein that failure to do so would result in cancellation and withdrawal of the offer of appointment dated 13th January, 2010. And whereas the ITI Trade Certificate produced by Shri Rajesh Banik is in Wireman Trade, which is not the prescribed essential qualification under ONGC, MRPR80. As such, Shri Banik is not fulfilling the requisite minimum qualification criteria prescribed for recruitment to the post of Jr. Asstt. Technician (Electrical) under MRPR80.
Whereas Shri Banik has failed to furnish the requisite trade certificate in electrical trade, which is the essential prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of Jr. Asstt. Technician (Electrical).
Therefore, the offer of appointment issued in favour of Shri Rajesh Banik, S/o Shri Naresh Chandra Banik, Dhaleswar, WestTripura799007 for the post of Jr. Asstt. Technician (Electrical), vide this Office Memorandum No. AGT/HRER/ R&P/1050 dated 13th Jan. 2010 stands cancelled and withdrawn being null & void abinitio.
Sd/24.3.10
(Giri Raj Dhiman) Manager (HR)
To
Shri Rajesh Banik
S/o Shri Naresh Chandra Banik
Dhaleswar, West Tripura799007"
The small question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the petitioner did conform the requirement of professional qualification so far as it relates to Trade Certificate in electrical trade.
In the counteraffidavit filed by the respondents, it is their stand that the petitioner did not conform to the requirement of having Trade Certificate in electrical trade. In this connection, they have referred to AnnexureR/l and R/2 letters dated 15.2.2010 and 167 19.2.2010 respectively. By the first letter dated 15.2.2010, the respondentCorporation requested the Secretary, State Council for Vocational Training, Tripura to furnish information as to whether the particular Trade Certificate submitted by the petitioner could be said to be Trade Certificate in electrical trade. Along with the said letter, the respondentCorporation had also enclosed the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner clarifying that the "Wireman" trade is an electrical trade.
In response to the aforesaid letter dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure R/1), the Government of Tripura in the Department of Industries and Commerce under the Signature of Director (1&C) furnished the required information to the Manager (HR), ONGC Ltd., Tripura vide AnnexureR/2 letter dated 16/19.2.2010 by stating that the queries made stood answered by the above quoted certificate dated 11.4.2002 which was followed by another certificate dated 20.2.2010. Thus queries made by the respondentCorporation were met with by the Department of Industries and Commerce confirming the above quoted certificates issued in favour of the petitioner clarifying that the Wireman Trade of ITI under DGE&T, Ministry of Labour, Government of India is an Electrical trade.
The aforesaid fact has also been admitted in Paragraph11 of the counteraffidavit. The relevant portion of which is quoted below:
"On receipt of the said communication dated 15.02.2010 (AnnexureR/1 supra), the Director (I&C) reverted on 16/19.02.2010 that the course during of Wireman Trade in ITI under NCVT is two year and entry qualification of Wireman Trade in it is 10th class pass under 10+2 system. He however further said that the details for syllabus for Wireman Trade etc. may also be seen in DGETs websitewww.dget.nic.in."
From the above what is seen is that after the aforesaid Annexure R2 communication dated 16/19.2.2010 confirming the position relating to the possession of electrical trade qualification by the petitioner, there was no further communication. It is not the case of the respondentCorporation that they have received further clarification in the matter and that the above quoted two certificates do not depict the correct position relating to the trade of the petitioner in which he is qualified i.e. electrical trade.
Although Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner upon a reference to the above quoted educational/professional qualification prescribed in the advertisement submits that there was no requirement of submitting separate trade certificate and that the electrical trade certificate of competency as electrical" supervisor was the requirement, but Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel representing the respondentCorporation by producing the particular Manual of the ONGC submits that apart from the certificate of competency as electrical supervisor, the certificate of electrical trade is also required.
Upon consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that when the petitioner has met the requirement of the trade certificate and the respondentsCorporation also verified the certificates through the issuing authority, there remained nothing for any action of the respondentsCorporation to issue the impugned Memorandum dated 24.3.2010 cancelling the offer of appointment made in favour of the petitioner.
There is another aspect of the matter. If the petitioner is authorized to supervise the electrical installation work described in the certificate, which is supervising electrical workman''s certificate of competency, it cannot be said that he is not a certificate holder in electrical trade which has also been certified by the above two quoted certificates.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find force in the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed which I accordingly do. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 24.3.2010. The respondents shall now take all consequential follow up action immediately.
Writ petition is allowed without, however, no order as to costs.