Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents especially Respondents No 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the Petitioner for the vacant posts of Bee Keeper strictly as per the merit and being meritorious he may be allowed selection and appointment to any of the said posts. The selection and appointment may be allowed from the same date as other candidates by virtue of Annexure P- 7 have been allowed selection and appointment with all consequential benefits.

(b) To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to reject the candidature of the Petitioner for the said posts.

(c) The Rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner by the Respondent commission may be held to be illegal and declared as null and void.”

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, in terms of Annexure P-1, Advertisement dated 08.04.2021, inter alia, invited applications for filling up 4 posts of Bee-keeper on contract basis. In terms of the advertisement, the minimum essential qualification as per R & P Rules to be eligible for the post of Bee-keeper was as under:-

“…

Bee-Keeper-

i) 10+2 or its equivalent from a recognized University/Board of School Education.

ii) Diploma/Certificate in Mali Class or Horticulture Trade from a recognized ITI

OR

Five year experience in Horticulture work in any recognized Institute/University Department of Horticulture/Agriculture etc.

Note:- A candidate shall be eligible for appointment of this post, if, he/she has passed Matriculation and 10+2 from any School/Institution situated within Himachal Pradesh.

Provided this condition shall not apply to Bonafide Himachalis.”

The petitioner participated in the process of selection to the post, however, as the result of the petitioner was not declared along-with other successful incumbents, the petitioner approached this Court in terms of the reliefs already mentioned hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement, the non-consideration of the petitioner for the post in issue, is completely arbitrary. He submitted that in terms of Annexure P-5, which is the one year’s Vocational Course Certificate issued to him by Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria and otherwise also, as there is vagueness in the advertisement regarding the minimum educational qualification, therefore also, the act of the respondents of not selecting the petitioner is bad.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Subordinate Board as well as Dr. Y.S. Parmar University, have submitted that as the petitioner was not fulfilling the minimum essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, therefore, his candidature was not considered for the purpose of offer of appointment and simply because he participated in the process of selection, the same otherwise also, does not confer upon him any indefeasible right of being appointed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

In order to be eligible for being appointed as a Bee-keeper in terms of the advertisement in issue, the incumbent was to possess 10+2 or its equivalent from a recognized university/Board of School Education and a Diploma/Certificate in Mali Class or Horticulture Trade ‘from a recognized ITI’. Alternatively the incumbent ought to be possessing five years experience in Horticulture work in any recognized Institute / University / Department of Horticulture / Agriculture etc.

The petitioner claims that Annexure P-5 appended with the petition, is equivalent to Diploma/Certificate in Mali Class or Horticulture Trade from a recognized ITI. This is the contention that was raised on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

This Court does not concurs with the argument of the learned counsel. The advertisement is neither vague nor cryptic in any manner and it clearly lays down that an incumbent who possesses either a Diploma or a Certificate in Mali Class or Horticulture Trade, from a recognized ITI, is eligible to be considered for appointment against the post of Bee-keeper.

Annexure P-5 is a certificate that has been issued by Dr. Y.S. Parmar University, in favour of the petitioner, perusal of which demonstrates that the petitioner underwent one year’s Vocational Course in Horticulture Management. It is also written in the certificate that the same was only for self employment purpose.

Be that as it may, fact of the matter is that as per the advertisement, the Diploma or the Certificate in the trade concerned was to be obtained from a recognized ITI. The certificate being relied upon by the petitioner has not been issued by any ITI. It is simply a Certificate that has been issued in Horticulture Management for self employment purpose, by the Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry. Therefore, even on the bare reading of the contents of the certificate, it cannot be said that the same is a Certificate or a Diploma that has been issued by a recognized ITI.

Dr. Y.S. Parmar University is statutory University and it is not an ITI. When the requirement of the advertisement is a Certificate or Diploma from a recognized ITI, this Court cannot read anything more in it than what is mentioned in the advertisement. Incidentally, it is also not mentioned in the advertisement that minimum qualification shall be Diploma/Certificate in Mali Class or Horticulture Trade from a recognized ITI or its equivalent. So when the advertisement does not envisages any Diploma or Certificate other than the one which is obtained by a candidate from a recognized ITI, there is no occasion otherwise also for this Court to dwell into this issue as to whether the so called certificate of the petitioner, can be said to be a Diploma/Certificate equivalent to that issued by the ITI or not.

In view of the above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.