# Dhani Saran Khare v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 1060
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-11-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34830 of 2003
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhani-saran-khare-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41003
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Technicians Service Rules 1993-Rule-8Qualification-Direct recruitment on the
Post of Assistant Boring Techniciancertificate
in
Diploma
by
I.T.I.-tool
maker-Diploma stopped in 1968-diploma
in tool Die maker started in 1976rejection of candidature after written
test of petitioner-on pretext absence of
tool maker certificate-held-not propertrade of Tool Maker and tool die maker is
same-out of 401 only 387 filled upconsequential direction issued.

Held: Para 6

Thus controversy involved is squarely
covered by the aforesaid decisions and
therefore I am of the opinion that the
petitioners
can
not
be
denied
consideration for appointment on the
post of Assistant Boring Technician in
the Minor Irrigation Department after
having qualified the written test and
having appeared in the interview on the
ground that they do not posses the
diploma in the trade "Tool Maker"
ignoring the diploma in "Tool and Die
maker".
The
respondents
are
also
estopped under law from ignoring their
candidature at such a belated stage after
they have accepted the applications of
the petitioners to take the written
examination followed by interview.
Case law discussed:
(Undated judgement)

## Text

1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED; ALLAHABAD 14.11.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34830 of 2003
And
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39268-04

Dhani Saran Khare

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P., and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Brajesh Singh
Sri R.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Minor Irrigation Department Boring
Technicians Service Rules 1993-Rule-8Qualification-Direct recruitment on the
Post of Assistant Boring Techniciancertificate
in
Diploma
by
I.T.I.-tool
maker-Diploma stopped in 1968-diploma
in tool Die maker started in 1976rejection of candidature after written
test of petitioner-on pretext absence of
tool maker certificate-held-not propertrade of Tool Maker and tool die maker is
same-out of 401 only 387 filled upconsequential direction issued.

Held: Para 6

Thus controversy involved is squarely
covered by the aforesaid decisions and
therefore I am of the opinion that the
petitioners
can
not
be
denied
consideration for appointment on the
post of Assistant Boring Technician in
the Minor Irrigation Department after
having qualified the written test and
having appeared in the interview on the
ground that they do not posses the
diploma in the trade "Tool Maker"
ignoring the diploma in "Tool and Die
maker".
The
respondents
are
also
estopped under law from ignoring their
candidature at such a belated stage after
they have accepted the applications of
the petitioners to take the written
examination followed by interview.
Case law discussed:
(Undated judgement)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. The only prayer made in this writ
petition is to direct the respondents to
consider the candidature of the petitioners
for
the
post
of
Assistant
Boring
Technician in the Irrigation department
and not to ignore their candidature for the
said post on the ground that they do not
possess the Diploma in the trade of "Tool
Maker" though they are holding two years
diploma in " Tool and Die maker"
awarded by the National Council for
Vocational Training and State Council for
Vocational
Training
from
Adarsh
Training Institute (ATI) Kanpur.

2. The Chief Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Department, respondent No. 3
issued
an
advertisement
inviting
applications to fill up 401 posts of
Assistant Boring Technicians. The said
advertisement was published in the
newspaper 'Amar Ujala' dated 8.6.2003.
Advertisement
provided
that
the
candidates must have passed High School
of the Board of High School and
Intermediate examination U.P., or an
examination recognized by the State
government as equivalent thereto and at
the same time must possess a certificate
of Tube-well mechanic course awarded
by the Government Technical Centre,
Gorakhpur
or
certificate
equivalent
thereto
recognized
by
the
State
government or a diploma of two years
course
awarded
by
Directorate
of
Employment and Training U.P., or
3 All] Dhani Saran Khare V. State of U.P. and others
1061
Industrial Training Institute in any of the
following trades which included "Tool
maker" apart from other trades. The
petitioners applied in pursuance to the
aforesaid
advertisement.
Their
applications were duly accepted. They
appeared in the written examination held
on 22.6.2003 of which the result was
declared on 5.7.2003. They successfully
qualified the written examination and as
such were called for interview on
7.7.2003. The petitioners also appeared
for the interview. However, they were not
considered for appointment at this stage
on the ground that they are not qualified
as they are not holding the diploma in the
trade "Tool maker".

3. In the above background, the
petitioners have approached this Court by
means of this writ petition and have
prayed that since they possessed diploma
in the trade "Tool and Die maker" they
are fully qualified for appointment on the
post of Assistant Boring technician and as
such their candidature can not be ignored.

4. I have heard Sri Brijesh Singh and
Sri R.B. Singhal, learned counsel for the
petitioners in the aforesaid two writ
petitions and the Standing counsel for the
respondents. The record of the petitions
have also been perused by me.

5. The only ground for ignoring the
candidate of the petitions for the posts of
Assistant Boring technician is that they
are Diploma Holders in the trade "Tool &
Die Maker" and not in the trade of "Tool
maker" which is a condition of eligibility
for the post.

6. I have considered the submission
of the parties. The U.P. Minor Irrigation
Department Boring Technician Service
Rules, 1993 in Rule 8 prescribes the
qualification for direct recruitment to the
post of Assistant Boring Technician as
contained in the advertisement. It is not in
dispute that the diploma course in the
trade of "Tool maker" was stopped in the
year 1968 and in its place the new course
i.e., diploma in "Tool and Die maker" was
started in the year 1976 by the National
Council for Vocational Training. The new
course is much wider and includes within
its ambit the course of "Tool maker".
Therefore, the petitioners possessing the
diploma in "Tool and Die maker" do
possess diploma in "Tool maker" as well.
The question whether the diploma in
"Tool and Die maker" is equivalent and at
par with the diploma of "Tool maker"
came
up
for
consideration
before
Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 239 (S/S) of 2004 Shailendra
Kumar Vs. State of U.P., and others
arising from the same from selection. The
court while allowing the writ petition and
commanding the opposite parties to
appoint the petitioner of that writ petition
on
the
post
of
Assistant
Boring
Technician held that the diploma in the
trade of " Tool and Die maker" and the
diploma in the trade of "Tool maker" are
one and the same and therefore the
candidates can not be denied appointment
on the ground that they did not possess
the specific diploma as "Tool maker" as
prescribed in the rules. The above view
has been followed and accepted by this
Court by a decision rendered in writ
another writ petition No. 1973 (S/S) of
2006 Umesh Singh Vs. State of U.P., and
another. So far both the above judgments
and orders of this Court are final as they
have not been set aside or have been
stayed by the superior Court. Thus
controversy involved is squarely covered
by the aforesaid decisions and therefore I
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
am of the opinion that the petitioners can
not
be
denied
consideration
for
appointment on the post of Assistant
Boring Technician in the Minor Irrigation
Department after having qualified the
written test and having appeared in the
interview on the ground that they do not
posses the diploma in the trade "Tool
Maker" ignoring the diploma in "Tool and
Die maker". The respondents are also
estopped under law from ignoring their
candidature at such a belated stage after
they have accepted the applications of the
petitioners to take the written examination
followed by interview.

7. Learned Standing counsel has
submitted that the petitioners have not
arrayed the selected candidates as the
respondents who are 387 in number and
as such they can not be granted the relief
as
claimed
by
them.
The
above
submission is bereft of merit in as much
as the petitioners are not challenging the
selection of the selected candidates.
Admittedly, 401 posts were advertised
and only 387 have been filled up.
Therefore, undisputedly 14 posts are still
vacant and probably have been kept
reserved by the inferior orders of Court.
Therefore, the petitioners can easily be
considered and if found successful in the
ultimate analysis may be accommodated
on the said remaining vacant posts
without disturbing any of the selected
candidates.

8. In view of the above, respondents
are directed to consider the candidature of
the petitioners for the post of Assistant
Boring Technician in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 8.6.2003 and not to
ignore their candidature only on the
ground that they possess diploma in the
trade of "Tool and Die maker" and not the
diploma in "Tool maker" prescribed in the
rules. The respondents shall complete the
process of selection as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of two
months from the date of production of the
certified copy of this order.

9. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4271 of 2007
Connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8643 of 2007
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8307 of 2007

Masan Ali and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.C. Pathak
Sri Girish Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Subodh Kumar
S.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Cancellation of
regularization Orderpetitioner working as part time sweeperregularised on policy decision-takes after
discussion between management and
employees union-petitioner regularized
and getting benefit, of regular salary
prior to 10.4.06 the date of judgement of
Apex Court in Uma Devi case-helddecision can not be applied mechanically
without
considering
the
facts
of
individual
case-cancellation
of
Regularisation order-illegal.