# Hari Ram Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 867
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No.3475 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-ram-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-49281
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Ramesh
Chandra Pandey

Advertisement for appointment of Technician
Grade -II -qualification-High School along with
two
years
diploma
certificate
issued
by
NCVT/SCVT-Petitioner had trade proficiency
Certificate issued by Indian Armed force-which
is equivalent-candidature rejected-mandatory
NCVT/SCVT Certificate lacking.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Hari Ram Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
867
against him. Respondent no.4 has also not
examined the guidelines framed by the
Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh
(Supra),
while
rejecting
the
selection/appointment of the petitioner
under the order impugned. Even otherwise,
proceedings of both the criminal cases
pending against the petitioner have already
been quashed by this Court on the basis of
compromise, as has already been noticed
herein above.

14. In view of the aforesaid, this finds
that the order impugned passed by
respondent no.4 cannot be legally sustained
and is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted
back to respondent no.4 for decision afresh
in light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the cases of Avtar Singh and
Pawan Kumar (Supras). While deciding
the matter afresh, respondent no.4 shall
pass a reasoned and speaking order, after
affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, preferably within three months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is filed before him.

15. The present writ petition is
allowed subject to the observations made
above.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 867
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No.3475 of 2022

Hari Ram Singh ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Shatrughan Sonwal,
Sri R.K. Ojha (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Ramesh
Chandra Pandey

Advertisement for appointment of Technician
Grade -II -qualification-High School along with
two
years
diploma
certificate
issued
by
NCVT/SCVT-Petitioner had trade proficiency
Certificate issued by Indian Armed force-which
is equivalent-candidature rejected-mandatory
NCVT/SCVT Certificate lacking.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Munesh Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(Writ A No. 52658 of 2012)

2. Sanjay Batra Vs St. of U.P. Throu. Prin. Secy.
Energy Deptt. Lko & ors. (Service Single No. 460
of 2014)

3. Dinesh Kumar Shukla Vs Electricity Service
Commission, Lucknow Thru. Chairman & ors.
(Special Appeal Defective No. 392 of 2017)

4. Sudhir Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (Special
Appeal Defective No. 147 of 2021) dated
19.02.2021
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for
respondent no. 1, Sri Abhishek Srivastava,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3
and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned
counsel for respondent no. 4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that an advertisement dated
17.06.2020 was issued by respondent no. 3
for appointment of Technician Grade-II and
as per advertisement, qualification for
appointment was High School or equivalent
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with Science and Math alongwith two years
diploma certificate issued by National
Council of Vocational Training (in short
"NCVT") / State Council of Vocational
Training (in short "SCVT"). Petitioner
being Ex-serviceman, has applied for the
same having certificate issued by Indian
Armed Forces (Army) Trade Proficiency
Certificate
For
Ex-Servicemen
dated
29.02.2020, which is equivalent to the
certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT, but his
candidature has been rejected on the
ground that certificate, so issued, is neither
equivalent
to
certificate
issued
by
NCVT/SCVT nor as per requirement of
advertisement. He next submitted that
Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment
Directorate
General
of
Employment & Training vide letter dated
4/13.03.2013 has directed all the Directors
of State Government/ UT Administration
dealing with Craftsman Training Scheme to
treat the certificate issued by respective
departments of Army, Air Force and Navy
equivalent to the certificate issued by
NCVT/ NCTVT. He next submitted that
under
such
facts
and
circumstances,
impugned order is bad and liable to be set
aside.

3. Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of newly
impleaded respondent no. 4 has filed short
counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
He also relied upon the very same letter dated
4/13.03.2013 issued by Government of India,
Ministry
of
Labour
&
Employment
Directorate General of Employment &
Training and submitted that this certificate is
equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/
SCVT.

4. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3
vehemently opposed the submissions raised
by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that it is required on the part of
petitioner
to
fulfill
the
qualification
whatsoever is mentioned in the advertisement
and undisputedly, the requirement is to have
two years training certificate issued by
NCVT/ SCVT in Trade of Electrician,
Electrical and Electrical (power distribution
under skill development). He next submitted
that undisputedly, petitioner is not having the
certificate issued by NCVT/ SCVT as desired
in the advertisement. Similar controversy
came up before this Court on so many
occasions and Court has taken the constant
view that requirement of advertisement has to
be completed.

5. He placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the matter of
Munesh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others (Writ A No. 52658 of 2012) dated
28.09.2012 in which Court has held that
under such circumstances, Court cannot
proceed to exercise its authority to accord any
relief.

6. He next placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the matter of
Sanjay Batra Vs. State of U.P. Throu. Prin.
Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko and others (Service
Single No. 460 of 2014) dated 10.03.2015
and submitted that point no. 2 decided in the
said judgment is the controversy of this
petition. In that case too, three years diploma
certificate was required whereas petitioner
was having certificate issued by Indian
Armed Forces (Army) and Court has again
taken the very same view that if the petitioner
is not holding any diploma of three years
issued by authority mentioned in the
advertisement, no relief can be granted.

7. Next, he placed reliance upon the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Shukla Vs.
9 All. Hari Ram Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
869
Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow
Thru. Chairman and others (Special
Appeal Defective No. 392 of 2017) dated
15.09.2017 in which issue was the same. In
that case, petitioner is having certificate
issued by the Indian Air Force on account
of his serving with the Air Force from 20th
September, 1991 to 20th September, 2011,
but his candidature was not considered as it
was not issued by authority mentioned in
the
advertisement.
Petitioner
has
challenged the same by filing writ petition
before this Court, which was rejected.
Against that, he has preferred Special
Appeal. Division Bench has affirmed the
judgment of Single Bench by dismissing
the appeal of the appellant. In the present
case too, certificate of the very same nature
as it was also issued to the petitioner on the
basis of his proficiency acquired during his
6 years, 2 months and 27 days of service.

8. Lastly, he placed reliance upon
another judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in the matter of Sudhir Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and another (Special
Appeal Defective No. 147 of 2021) dated
19.02.2021,
which
also
shows
that
condition
so
mentioned
in
the
advertisement has to be complied. In that
case, appellant was having Diploma in
Electrical Engineering issued by Indian
Air Force. Court after considering the
arguments so advanced, came to the
conclusion that equivalence to any other
course can be given by the council
namely AICTE or the State Government
for their service and not by any other
body having no authority of it for general
application. He next submitted that in
present case, certificate so required is
from NCVT/ SCVT of two years training
course, but it has never declared by
NCVT/ SCVT that certificate issued by
the Indian Armed Forces (Army) is
equivalent to certificate issued by the
Institution, therefore, same cannot be
treated equivalent and the petition may be
dismissed.

9. I have considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record. The
only issue before this Court is as to
whether certificate so submitted by the
petitioner is fulfilling the terms of the
advertisement
or
not,
therefore,
advertisement dated 17.06.2020 is being
quoted herein below;

"

10.

In
paragraph
2
of
the
advertisement under Heading "Essential
Educational Qualification", it is clearly
mentioned that petitioner must have passed
High School or equivalent examination
with Science and Math subjects alongwith
two years training diploma as regular
student from NCVT/ SCVT. In the present
case, there is no dispute on the point that
petitioner was never a regular student of
NCVT/ SCVT and obtained certificate as
required by the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
This Court in the matter of Munesh Kumar
(supra) has dealt with very same issue in
which petitioners have completed the
training in Electric in service and possess
the certificate Proficiency Certificate and in
N.A.C. Electrical which is equivalent to
qualification as advertised. Lastly, Court
has opined that once certificate issued in
favour of petitioner is not accepted by the
respondents, Court cannot proceed to
exercise its authority of judicial review to
accord any relief. In present case too,
petitioner was issued Trade Proficiency
Certificate For Ex-Servicemen issued by
Indian Armed Forces (Army) based upon
proficiency acquired during 16 years 2
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
months 27 days of service in the Army.
Relevant paragraph of Munesh Kumar
(supra) is being quoted below;

"This Court has occasion to
consider the advertisement in question at
page 17 of the paper book and as per the
advertisement in question candidate desirous
of being appointed has to have to his credit
High School or equivalent examination
certificate with Science and Math from U.P.
High School Board or from any other
equivalent Board with two years certificate in
Electrician
trade
obtained
from
All
India/State Vocational certificate. Accepted
position is that petitioners are not at all
having the aforementioned certificate and to
the contrary petitioners are contending that
they have completed the training in Electric
in service and possess the certificate
Proficiency
Certificate
and
in
N.A.C.
Electrician
which
is
equivalent
to
qualification as advertised. The advertisement
in question at no point of time permits to
furnish any equivalent certificate to be
furnished as has been specifically provided
for i.e. certificates issues in electrical trade
obtained from All India and State vocational
certificate. Once such is the factual situation
that certificates issued in favour of the
petitioner are not accepted to be certificate as
is required in the advertisement then this
Court cannot proceed to exercise its authority
of judicial review to accord any relief, as
equivalence is to be determined by the
authorities, and that too when there is any
room for the said purpose."

11. Again in the matter of Sanjay
Batra (supra) issue was same and Court
has framed point no. 2, whether Diploma
held
by
the
petitioner
satisfies
the
requirement of advertisement. Lastly, Court
has taken the very same view that petitioner
is not holding a requisite Diploma as
required under the advertisement and
Diploma, which he is having is not
recognized by the State of U.P. to be
equivalent to the three years Diploma
awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad,
U.P. Relevant paragraphs are quoted below;

"Point-2:- Whether the Diploma
held
by
the
petitioner
satisfies
the
requirement of advertisement?

The advertisement lays down the
essential qualification for the candidates
applying to the aforesaid post as under:-

(i)
Three
years
Diploma
examination in Electrical Engineering/
Electronics
Engineering/
Telecommunication
Engineering/
Civil
Engineering awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha
Parishad, Uttar Pradesh or a Diploma,
equivalent thereto, recognized by the State
Government, or

(ii)
Three
years
All
India
Diploma
Examination
in
Electrical
Engineering/
Electronics
Engineering/
Telecommunication
Engineering/
Civil
Engineering conducted by the All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE),
or

(iii) Diploma Examination in
Electrical
Engineering/
Electronics
Engineering/
Telecommunication
Engineering/ Civil Engineering conducted
by any of the Universities in India
incorporated by an Act of the Central/ State
legislature.

It may be noted that the petitioner
is holding a Diploma in Electronics Radio
Communication Engineering which he did
from Communication Training Institute
9 All. Hari Ram Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
871
(C.T.I.) Banglore. The said Diploma
certificate has been issued to him by the
Indian Air Force. The duration of the said
Diploma course as stated in the certificate
is two years i.e.1994-96.

In
view
of
the
aforesaid
certificate it is clear that petitioner is not
holding any Diploma of three years which
has been issued either by the Pravidhik
Shiksha Parishad, or All India Council for
Technical Education or any Central or
State University. Therefore, the petitioner is
not holding a Diploma as envisaged in the
advertisement as the minimum qualification
for eligibility.

In the above circumstances, the
only thing which is required to be seen is
whether the Diploma which the petitioner
is holding is equivalent to the Three Years
Diploma awarded by the Pravidhik Shiksha
Parishad,Uttar Pradesh.

In this connection, it is important
to note that the Diploma which the
petitioner is holding is of only two years
duration and is not of three years.
Secondly, there is nothing on record to
establish that it has been recognized by the
State of U.P. or any other authority
equivalent
to
Three
years
Diploma
examination in Electrical Engineering/
Electronics
Engineering/
Telecommunication
Engineering/
Civil
Engineering awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha
Parishad, Uttar Pradesh rather annexure-3
to the counter affidavit which is letter dated
14.10.2011 addressed by the Secretary
Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow to
the Secretary U.P. Power Corporation on
the query made with regard to the similar
certificates states that course in respect
whereof certificates have been issued are
not of three years, the same cannot be
regarded as equivalent to the Three year
Diploma certificate prescribed as the
essential
qualification
under
the
advertisement.

The recognition to any Diploma
as equivalent to Three Years Diploma in the
desired subject awarded by Pravidhik
Shiksha Parishad has to be by the State of
U.P. There is no material to show that the
State of U.P. has recognized the Diploma
held by the petitioner as equivalent to the
Three Years Diploma in the concern subject
of the Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed strong reliance upon the letter
of the Secretary to the Government of India
dated 31.12.1999 addressed to the Joint
Director Directorate Ex-Service Welfare,
Chennai which states that the Government
of India have recognized the certificate in
the Trade of Radio Fitter which is made
equivalent
to
Diploma
in
Radio/
Electronics
and
Communication
Engineering
for
the
purposes
of
employment and as such a requesting to
recognize it as equivalent to Diploma in
Electronics/
Radio
Communication
Engineering. The said letter do recognize
the Diploma certificate in Radio Fitter as
equivalent
to
Diploma
in
Radio/
Electronics
and
Communication
Engineering but this recognition is only by
the Government of India and not by the
Government of U.P. The requirement of
equivalency has to be by the State
Government.

In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is neither an Ex-Serviceman nor
is holding a requisite Diploma as required
under the advertisement and that the
Diploma which he is holding is not
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recognized by the State of U.P. to be
equivalent to the Three Years Diploma
awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad,
U.P.

Accordingly, petitioner is neither
entitle to the benefit of an ex-serviceman
nor is qualified for the post in question as
advertised. Thus, the respondents have
rightly declined to accept him for interview.

The writ petition is devoid of
merit and is accordingly dismissed with no
orders as to costs."

12. This issue was also came before
Division Bench of this Court in the matter
of Dinesh Kumar Shukla (supra) and
Division Bench repeated the same view.
Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment
are quoted below;

"Learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant
on the finding that he did not possess the
requisite diploma qualification as was
mentioned in the advertisement. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant did possess the diploma in
Electrical Engineering relying upon a
certificate issued by the Indian Air force on
account of his serving with the Air force
from 20th September, 1991 to 20th
September, 2011 and having undergone the
prescribed training in the Trade of MS FIT
(E). He further submits that in the
certificate it is mentioned that if the
candidate acquires 10 years technical
experience in appropriate field alongwith
the diploma it would become equivalent to
the degree in engineering and that he would
be eligible for applying to gazetted posts
under Central or State Government. He
submits that appellant worked for 20 years
with the Indian Air force alongwith his
technical training as such he was fully
eligible for applying to the post of Junior
Engineer (Electrical) with the U.P. Power
Corporation. This aspect has been dealt
with by the learned Single Judge and it did
not find favour. The same was rejected on
two grounds that the training period of
Diploma was very short and not of 3 years
as required and secondly the same was not
recognised by the Competent Authority. We
do not find any fault with the reasoning
recorded by the learned Single Judge by
rejecting the said argument and dismissing
the writ petition.

13. Once again this Court has
considered the very same issue in the
matter of Sudhir Singh (supra) and
reiterated
its
earlier
view.
Relevant
paragraphs are quoted below;

"We otherwise find that the
qualification prescribed under the rules and
mentioned in para 5 of the advertisement
was required to be possessed by the
candidates. Equivalence to any other course
can be given by the council namely AICTE
or the State Government for their service
and not by any other body having no
authority of it for general application. The
petitioner-appellant is not in possession of
the qualification conferred either by an
university incorporated by the Central or
State Legislature or three years diploma
course conducted by AICTE or for that
State of U.P. There is nothing on record to
show that the State of U.P. has given
equivalence
to
the
course/certificate
obtained by the petitioner-appellant.

In absence of it, we do not find
any error in the judgment to hold the
petitioner-appellant to be ineligible. It
otherwise goes without saying that the
recognition of the institution and the course
9 All. Brahamnad Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
873
remains under the domain of AICTE and
not with anyone else. The equivalence of
the course is also to be given by AICTE
being the council competent to issue
notification for technical education. It is
pursuant to the provisions of All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987.
If the recognition or equivalence of a
technical course is to be given, it has to be
as per the provisions of All India Council
for Technical Education Act, 1987 and not
in violation of it."

14. Now coming to the present case.
In this case also, advertisement is very
clear which shows that certificate has to be
issued by NCVT/ SCVT for a regular
student who has attended two years training
course, which is undisputedly lacking and
certificate of petitioner is issued by Indian
Armed Forces (Army) based upon 16 years
experience of service. This issue have also
been considered in the judgments cited
before this Court and it is consistently held
that Court cannot proceed to exercise its
authority of judicial review to compel the
respondents to accept the equivalence as
claimed by the petitioner based upon the
notification
issued
by
the
Central
Government coupled with the fact that
essential requirement is of two years
regular training course for obtaining
Diploma of NCVT/ SCVT. Therefore, in
light of discussion made hereinabove as
well as law laid down by the Courts, no
interference is required.

15. Petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 873
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No.6237 of 2022

Brahamnad Tyagi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Kunal Shah, Sri Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Suresh
C. Dwivedi

Civil Law - U.P. Agricultural Produce
Market
committees
(
Centralized
)
Services
Regulations,
1984-Petitioner
retired in 2018-chargesheet served on
2022-against this the present Petition- no
provision
under
Rules,
1984
which
empower
to
initiate
disciplinary
proceeding against a retired employeeimpugned order set aside.

Held, Even in case of adoption of rules
applicable to the St. Government employees
under Regulation 43 of Regulations 1984,
once the service is not pensionable under
Regulation 47 of Regulations 1984, no action
can be taken against him under Article 351-A
of CSR or any other rule adopted by
respondents
under
Regulation
43
of
Regulations 1984. (para 13)

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & anr.
Vs Public Services Tribunal U.P. & ors., 2008 (2)
ADJ 11 (DB)

2. S.P.S. Raghav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2018(6)
ADJ 193 (DB)

3. Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
passed in Writ-A No. 7517 of 2016 decided on
29.02.2016