Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Writ Petition No. 470 of 2003

Judges

V.K Gupta, C.J
R.L Khurana, J.

Acts

Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991,
Rule 3(e)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (V.K. Gupta, C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Chief Justice V.K. Gupta took the petition up for final disposal with the consent of counsel. The narrow point for consideration concerned the interpretation of a two years' experience requirement in the H.P. Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training Department Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1987 for the post of Group Instructor/Foreman. The Rules prescribe (i) Matric with Science and Math, (ii) a three years Diploma in Engineering, and (iii) two years' experience in an Industrial Training Institution and/or a reputed industrial concern.

Respondent No. 1 possessed the matriculation and the three years' diploma qualifications, but the admitted fact before the Tribunal was that his two years' experience had been gained before he obtained the three years' diploma. The petitioners held respondent No. 1 ineligible for direct recruitment on the basis that the 1987 Rules required the two years' experience to be obtained after the diploma qualification. Respondent No. 1 challenged that decision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 935 of 2002 and directed the petitioners to offer appointment to respondent No. 1 in terms of the recommendations of the H.P. Subordinate Selection Board. The present petition challenged that Tribunal decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the two years' experience required by the 1987 Rules for the post of Group Instructor/Foreman must have been gained after obtaining the three years' Diploma in Engineering (i.e., whether the experience requirement is temporally linked to acquisition of the diploma).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (petitioners') Arguments

The petitioners contended that respondent No. 1 was ineligible because the 1987 Rules required that the two years' experience should have been obtained after the acquisition of the three years' Diploma in Engineering.

Respondent No. 1's Arguments

Respondent's counsel relied on Supreme Court authority, principally Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2000) 1 SCC 128, to argue that a provision requiring professional experience (of two years) does not necessarily require that such experience be gained after obtaining the degree/diploma; experience gained before the qualification could satisfy the experience requirement provided it is the requisite kind of professional experience from a recognized institution or concern.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 128	Held that a provision speaking of "professional experience" (two years) does not necessarily connect that experience temporally to the degree/qualification; experience need not be entirely after obtaining the degree.	The court relied on this authority to conclude that the two years' experience requirement in the 1987 Rules need not have been obtained after the diploma; timing relative to the diploma was not material so long as the experience was of the requisite kind.
Subhash v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 332	Interpreted a rule requiring one year's experience in a registered automobile workshop as not making any distinction between experience acquired before or after the basic qualification.	Referenced (via Anil Kumar Gupta) as a comparable authority holding that the acquisition of experience prior to or after the basic qualification does not affect eligibility when the rule requires professional experience.
A.K. Raghunani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath, (2000) 4 SCC 30	Affirmed and explained the approach in Anil Kumar Gupta, clarifying that two years' professional experience need not entirely be experience gained after obtaining the degree.	The court noted this authority as further supporting the position that the timing of professional experience relative to the qualification does not disqualify a candidate in the circumstances described.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified the narrow interpretive issue as whether the two years' experience required by the 1987 Rules must be gained after the three years' Diploma in Engineering. It observed that the Supreme Court has considered identical or very similar issues and has reached a settled view: where a provision speaks only of "professional experience" for a specified period (e.g., two years), that expression does not inherently connect the experience to having been gained after the qualification. The court quoted paragraph 20 of Anil Kumar Gupta, which expressly relied on Subhash v. State of Maharashtra to show that a statutory or rule-based experience requirement did not distinguish between experience acquired before or after the basic qualification.

Applying that settled principle, the court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that respondent No. 1 should be regarded as eligible. The timing of the experience (before or after acquisition of the diploma) was not material so long as the experience was the type prescribed (i.e., in an Industrial Training Institution or a reputed industrial concern or an institution duly recognised).

However, the court distinguished eligibility from entitlement to immediate appointment. It modified the Tribunal's direction ordering appointment by holding that, while respondent No. 1 is eligible, his actual appointment is contingent upon his selection along with other eligible candidates and the vacancy/zone of appointment determined through the selection process.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is dismissed.

Direct consequences and implications:

Respondent No. 1 is to be held eligible for the post insofar as the two years' professional experience requirement is concerned, because the timing of the experience relative to the diploma is immaterial under the cited Supreme Court authorities.
The Tribunal's specific direction to offer appointment was modified: respondent No. 1's eligibility does not itself guarantee appointment — appointment depends on his being selected with other eligible candidates and the established zone of appointment pursuant to the selection process.
The interim order is vacated and there are no orders as to costs.

The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal principle; it applies existing Supreme Court authorities to the facts and modifies the remedial direction issued by the Tribunal accordingly.

Show full summary ...

State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another v. Piar Chand And Another

V.K Gupta, C.J:— With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal today.

2. A very short point arises for our consideration in this case and that is relating to the interpretation of the two year's experience requirement as contemplated in H.P Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training Department Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1987 for the post of Group Instructor/Foreman. Under heading “Minimum educational and other qualification required for direct recruits”, the following has been prescribed:—

“(i) Matric with Science and Math from recognised University/Board or equivalent.

(ii) Three years Diploma in Engg. from a recognised State Board or Technical Education or equivalent.

(iii) Two years experience in an Industrial Training Institution and or in reputed Industrial concern.

ESSENTIAL

Knowledge of customs and manner and dialects of H.P suitability for appointment in particular condition prevailing in Himachal Pradesh.”

3. Since admittedly in this case, respondent No. 1 even though possessed academic qualification of Matric with Science and Math and also three years Diploma in Engineering from a recognised Institution as provided for in the 1987 Rules, in so far as the requirement of two years experience in an Industrial Training Institution and/or in a reputed Industrial concern was concerned the admitted case of respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that this experience of two years had not been gained by him after he had obtained the aforesaid academic qualification of three years Diploma in Engineering inasmuch as this experience was obtained by him before he had obtained the academic qualification. Because the petitioners found respondent No. 1 ineligible for consideration for direct recruitment on the found that the 1987 Rules stipulated and required that two year's should have been obtained after three year's experience Diploma qualification, respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment allowed the Original Application No. 935 of 2002 and issued a specific direction to the petitioners to offer appointment to respondent No. 1 in terms of recommendations made by the H.P Subordinate Selection Board.

4. During the course of hearing today, Mr. Maniktala, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has invited our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 128 : [2000 (1) SLR 303 (SC)] wherein their Lordships, while considering an identical situation held that two year's professional experience need not entirely be an experience gained after obtaining degree. Even though in Anil Gupta's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with a specific question of law relating to the service having been put in as an eligible condition and criteria, and yet in so far [as the requirement of professional experience of two year's was concerned, it also fell for their Lordship's consideration in the aforesaid judgment, and after taking notice of some earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, it was held that the provision regarding experience wherever it spoke only “professional experience”, for two years, did not in any manner connect with the degree qualification. We quote with advantage para 20 of the aforesaid judgment. It reads thus:—

“We may at the outset state that the provision regarding experience speaks only of professional experience for two years and degree qualification. In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 332, where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant recruitment rules namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court pointed out that Rule 3(e) which required one year's experience in a registered automobile workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification.”

In the case of A.K Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath, (2000) 4 SCC 30 : [2000 (2) SLR 633 (SC)], once again dealing with a similar situation, their Lordships of the Supreme Court expressed the same view and actually in para 15 of that judgment took note of judgment in Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra) by clarifying that in Anil Kumar Gupta's case, the Court had clearly interpreted the expression to mean” that the two year's professional experience need not entirely be experience gained after obtaining the degree.”

5. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law as now laid and settled by the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the view of the Tribunal that in the facts and circumstances of this case respondent No. 1 was eligible because whether the experience was gained by him before he obtained the academic qualification or after that, was not the issue as long as he had obtained the requisite experience from an Industrial Training Institution or an Institution duly recognised.

6. However, in so far as specific direction of the Tribunal to the effect that respondent No. 1 be offered an appointment for the post of Foreinan Group Inspector, we modify that direction by saying that even though the respondent No. 1 shall be held eligible, his actual appointment would be dependent upon his having been selected along with other eligible candidates and also failing in the zone of appointment based on such selection.

7. The petition is dismissed. Interim order vacated. No orders as to costs.

8. Petition dismissed.

State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another v. Piar Chand And Another

Structured Summary of the Opinion (V.K. Gupta, C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (petitioners') Arguments

Respondent No. 1's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another v. Piar Chand And Another

Comments