GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Appeal No. 123/2005, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant -plaintiff affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and Judl. Magistrate, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 236/2002.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that after passing the Senior Secondary Examination (Vocational) in Electrical Branch from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1997, the appellant -plaintiff was selected by the Board of Apprenticeship Training, North Region which is sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India and the appellant was placed for apprenticeship training under the Zonal Chief Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The appellant successfully completed the apprenticeship training on 09.09.1999 and a proficiency certificate was issued in his favour on 09.08.1999 by the Executive Engineer, R.S.E.B. As per the contention of the appellant -plaintiff, the training of apprenticeship is managed by the National Council and Regional Board of Apprenticeship. The National Council is awarding National Apprenticeship certificate and Board of Apprenticeship Training is awarding Certificate of Proficiency, therefore, both the certificates are equivalent certificates given under the Apprenticeship Act. As per the appellant, respondent advertised vacancies for the posts of Sub Station Attendant and the appellant applied for it; but, he was not selected for the post on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Contention of the appellant is that his candidature was wrongly rejected on the ground that he does not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post. The minimum qualification for the post of Sub Station Attendant - II is National Apprenticeship Certificate, therefore, against the illegal action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the appellant for appointment on the post of Sub Station Attendant - II a suit was preferred by the appellant plaintiff but the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the candidature of the appellant was rightly rejected because he is not possessing the basic qualification as required for the post of Sub Station Attendant - II. The said judgment and decree dated 22.11.2005 was further challenged before the first appellate Court but the learned lower appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court against which this appeal has been filed.
(3.) ON 10.02.2009, while admitting the appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court: (i) Whether the qualification of certificate in proficiency is same and equivalent to the qualification N.A.C. ? (ii) Whether the qualification of 'certificate in proficiency' is higher then the qualification of industrial training institute (I.T.I.) ? (iii) Whether the R.S.E.B. is bound to follow direction given by the Central Government ministry of Human Resource Development (M.H.R.D.), Department of Education vide letter dated 6.5.1997? (iv) Whether the R.S.E.B. is bound to follow the direction given by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour on dated 15.3.1996 ? ;