- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. R. Dubey for the petitioner. Sri B. N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and learned Standing Counsel for State of U. P.
(2.) AN advertisement was issued by U. P. Public Service Commission dated 16-7-1999 inviting applications for selection to the post of Regional Inspector (Tech.) as well as Assistant Regional Inspector (Tech.) in Transport Department. Petitioner, Rajiv Kumar Bansal applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. Para 5 of the advertisement provided for eligibility for application namely, that applicant should have passed High School Examination from U. P. Secondary Education Board or equivalent examination, a diploma in mechanic or automobile engineering from any institute ; Technical Education Board, U. P. or equivalent examination practical experience of at least five years in a large automobile workshop with regard to repairs, overhauling supervision of motor vehicles, licence for driving heavy motor vehicles, and knowledge of Hindi in Dev nagari script. The advertisement also provided eligibility for Assistant Regional Inspector (Tech. ). Petitioner who has passed both High School and Intermediate examination in first division and holds degree of B. E. (Mech) in first division, from Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Maharasthrawara University, Aurangabad (Maharastra), applied along with other candidates. For practical experience, petitioner enclosed two certificates, namely, one from Hindustan Automobiles which was approved by the Government from 10th May, 1994 and another certificate issued by Zaheer Engineering Works from 1st January, 1997. The written examinations were to commence from 26-8- 2000. His candidature was rejected by the Commission, vide letter dated 27-7-2000 on the ground that his experience certificate is not admissible. Petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 17-8-2000 on the ground that petitioner was not holding requisite experience for the post. An application for recall of the order/review was also rejected on 24-8-2000. Aggrieved, petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 515 of 2000, in which by order dated 25-8-2000, while granting time to the respondents to file counter-affidavit , and rejoinder-affidavit, following interim order was passed : "there will be an interim order directing the respondents to allow the appellant to appear in the examination scheduled to take place on 26-8-2000. The result of the examination of appellant shall abide the result of the special appeal. " Petitioner was permitted to appear in written examination as well as practical examination and was thereafter called for interview. His result was, however, withheld due to pendency of aforesaid Special Appeal. The appeal was heard and decided on 16-7-2001. The Bench vide order dated 16-7-2001 held and decided as follows : "the contention of Mr. S. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the Commission before us is that the candidates must possess practical experience in a large automobile workshop approved by the State Government. It has however, neither been mentioned in the advertisement nor prescribed in Rule 213 (4) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Act. It will be quite unreasonable to construe the large automobile workshop as that workshop which was approved by the State Government because many automobile workshops are very big and cannot excluded for the purposes. Moreover, the decision of the Commission cannot override the statutory rule. That apart the advertisement does not also mention that the large automobile workshop only relates to the workshop approved by the State Government. This aspect of the matter, in our view, appears to have been overlooked by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we are of the view that the U. P. Public Service Commission should reconsider the case of appellant for appointment afresh and take into account if the appellant has worked in a large automobile workshop meaning thereby the large automobile workshop either approved by the State Government or in the private sector. The Commission shall scrutinize the document and evidence that has been produced by the appellant and in the event the Commission holds that the appellant has no such qualification of work in a large automobile workshop, which is essential pursuant to the advertisement it shall record reasons for the same and in case the Commission finds that the appellant has requisite experience of working in a large automobile workshop it shall declare result, accordingly and recommend the case of the appellant for appointment. The Commission shall take decision in the matter expeditiously".
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the order passed by the single Judge is set aside and the special appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The Examination Controller of U. P. Public Service Commission vide its order dated 23-8-2001 reconsidered the matter regarding petitioner's eligibility with regard to his practical experience. It is stated in this order impugned in this writ petition that the Commission in consultation with Transport Commissioner, U. P. considered the eligibility of all the candidates, prior to selections, keeping only such workshops in the category of large automobile workshops, which are (1) approved by U. P. Government (2) Department of State Government or Central Government which has its own large automobile workshop ; (3) a corporation which has its own large workshop, and (4) workshop of authorised dealers of heavy and light vehicles where repairs and overhauling is carried out. Petitioner has produced experience certificate from two different establishments in which the first certificate is of two and half years, and the other for rest of the period. The first certificate shows that the workshop was earlier approved by the State Government and if this workshop may be treated as large workshop, even then the experience is of two and half years, whereas the experience required for Regional Inspector (Tech) is five years and for Assistant Inspector (Tech), three years. The second certificate given by Zaheer Engineer Works signed by Zaheer Mistry. It does not show that it approved by the State Government or gives the nature of work carried out in the workshop. This workshop (Zaheer Engineering Works) was thus not treated to be large workshop and thus petitioner was not found to have even three years experience and thus the result of this examination was not declared. Thereafter by notification dated 6- 3-2002 issued by Secretary of Commission, petitioner candidature for Assistant Regional Inspector examination was rejected.;