# KRISHAN LAL 1""_ v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 10 S.C.R. 1018
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-07-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4385 of 2009
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Deepak Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/krishan-lal-1-v-state-of-haryana-ors-24902
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

SERVICE LAW:
t •
c
Appointment to post of Mechanist Grinder Instructor -
Criterion of experience - Period of 5 years' practical/teaching
experience - HELD: Would include the duration of certificate
course undergone by candidate as also the period during
which he was an apprentice - Thus calculated, the candidate
D satisfied the required experience - Merely because the
...... _
establishments were not subscribing to the provident fund, the
same would not be a ground to treat the experience
certificates issued by them as nullities - Employees'
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
E
The appellant challenged the appointment of
respondent No.4 as Mechanist Grinder Instructor by filing
a writ petition before the High Court on the ground that
he did not fulfill the criteria of 5 years practical/teaching
experience; and that the Certificates produced by him
F would show that he had been working at difference
placed at the same time and thus the same could not
have been taken into consideration. The High Court on
consideration of the Certificates produced by respondent
No.4 dismissed the writ petition.
G
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
l-..
appellant that even if the two Certificates relied upon by
respondent no. 4 were held to be valid, the period of
practical experience gained by him would be less than 5
H
1018
KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
1019
~
years; and that the Cl~'~Yificates weJf//fr},ssued by the A
industries which were n~t in existenc· 1.as no provident
'
fund was deposited by them;
' I
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The period of five years practical/teaching
B
experience would include the period mentioned at
,,
~
column No.(ii), namely, a certificate course undergone by
the candidate concerned. It has not been disputed that
the said certificate course is of two years. From a perusal
of the judgment passed by the High Court, it would c
furthermore appear that respondent No.4 was an
apprentice in Maruti Udyog for a period of one year. The
said period must also be counted. It has categorically
been stated before the High Court as also before this
~"
Court that the Commission did not take into consideration
D
the third certificate. It can, therefore, not be said that
respondent No.4 did not fulfill the requisite essentia1
qualifications. [Para 9) [1023-B-E)
2. As regards the plea of the appellant that since no
E
provident fund was deposited, the industries issuing the
experience certificates were not existing, admittedly, the
same having not been raised before the High Court,
cannot be permitted to be raised before this Court.
However, non-deposit of the provident fund in terms of
F
the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 by itself does not lead to the
conclusion that the establishments are non-existing.
Provident fund need to be deposited provided the said
Act applies. It may be even otherwise a violation of the
provisions of the said Act, but only by reason thereof, the
G
,._)
certificates granted by the employers would not be
treated to be nullities. [Paras 9 and 10) [1023-E-H; 1024A)

## Text

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1018
A
KRISHAN LAL
1""_,..
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4385 of 2009)
B
JULY 16, 2009
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
SERVICE LAW:
t •
c
Appointment to post of Mechanist Grinder Instructor -
Criterion of experience - Period of 5 years' practical/teaching
experience - HELD: Would include the duration of certificate
course undergone by candidate as also the period during
which he was an apprentice - Thus calculated, the candidate
D satisfied the required experience - Merely because the
...... _
establishments were not subscribing to the provident fund, the
same would not be a ground to treat the experience
certificates issued by them as nullities - Employees'
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
E
The appellant challenged the appointment of
respondent No.4 as Mechanist Grinder Instructor by filing
a writ petition before the High Court on the ground that
he did not fulfill the criteria of 5 years practical/teaching
experience; and that the Certificates produced by him
F would show that he had been working at difference
placed at the same time and thus the same could not
have been taken into consideration. The High Court on
consideration of the Certificates produced by respondent
No.4 dismissed the writ petition.
G
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
l-..
appellant that even if the two Certificates relied upon by
respondent no. 4 were held to be valid, the period of
practical experience gained by him would be less than 5
H
1018
KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
1019
~
years; and that the Cl~'~Yificates weJf//fr},ssued by the A
industries which were n~t in existenc· 1.as no provident
'
fund was deposited by them;
' I
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The period of five years practical/teaching
B
experience would include the period mentioned at
,,
~
column No.(ii), namely, a certificate course undergone by
the candidate concerned. It has not been disputed that
the said certificate course is of two years. From a perusal
of the judgment passed by the High Court, it would c
furthermore appear that respondent No.4 was an
apprentice in Maruti Udyog for a period of one year. The
said period must also be counted. It has categorically
been stated before the High Court as also before this
~"
Court that the Commission did not take into consideration
D
the third certificate. It can, therefore, not be said that
respondent No.4 did not fulfill the requisite essentia1
qualifications. [Para 9) [1023-B-E)
2. As regards the plea of the appellant that since no
E
provident fund was deposited, the industries issuing the
experience certificates were not existing, admittedly, the
same having not been raised before the High Court,
cannot be permitted to be raised before this Court.
However, non-deposit of the provident fund in terms of
F
the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 by itself does not lead to the
conclusion that the establishments are non-existing.
Provident fund need to be deposited provided the said
Act applies. It may be even otherwise a violation of the
provisions of the said Act, but only by reason thereof, the
G
,._)
certificates granted by the employers would not be
treated to be nullities. [Paras 9 and 10) [1023-E-H; 1024A)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
I-
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 10 S.C.R.
A 4385 of 2009.
1---
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.3.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No. 16960 of 2006.
B
Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati (SCLSC) for the Appellants.
Manjit Singh AAG, T.V. George and R.C. Kaushik for the
Respondents.
~ ,
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued an
advertisement for the post of Mechanist Grinder Instructor in
D newspapers laying down the following essential qualifications:
..
"(i)
Matriculation/Senior Secondary/10th pass under
10+2 scheme.
(ii)
National Trade certificate and Craft Instructor
E
Training course in concerned Trade.
(iii)
Five years practical/teaching experience including
the period mentioned at (ii) above from a reputed
\
Industrial concern or recognized Institute.
F
(iv)
Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric."
3. The appellant as also the respondent No.4 amongst
others applied pursuant to the said advertisement. The
respondent No.4 had admittedly been selected. Questioning
G the said selection and consequent appointment, appellant
herein filed a writ petition before the High Court, inter alia,
l -...
contending that he did not fulfill the criteria of five years
practical/teaching experience. It was pointed out that the
certificates produced by him would show that he had been
H
KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
1021
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
working at different places at the same time and, thus, the
A
same could not have been taken into consideration.
us.
4. The High Court rejected the said contention, stating:
"It is not disputed that on the basis of certificate mentioned
at Sr. No.1, requisite benefit was given to respondent No.4
8
by the competent authority, in awarding marks for the
Crafts course, which obviously means that the certificate
has to be taken as a correct certificate.
With regard to above mentioned two certificates, c
(approximately for the same period), it has been stated that
respondent No.4 was working in two shifts. Be that as it
may, it is not necessary for us to go into that dispute on
facts. If we ignore experience certificate mentioned at Sr.
No.2, even then respondent No.4 completes the condition o
of five years experience. It is clear from the record that to
add five years experience, period spent in getting National
Trade Certificate and Craft instructor Training Courts (sic
Course) certificate is to be counted. Respondent No.4 has
spent two years during those courses. Besides that, he has
E
gained experience of two years against certificate
mentioned at Sr. No.1 and about 2% years experience
against certificate mentioned at Sr. No.3. Not only this,
with reply, a certificate has been put on record from Maruti
Udyog Limited (annexure R-2) showing that respondent
No.4 has undergone apprenticeship training for one year.
F
If we count the abovesaid periods of training/experience
undergone by respondent No.4, total period of experience
comes out to be more than five years. No other point was
raised."
G
· 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant is before
6. The respondent No.1 has filed a counter affidavit, inter
H
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.
A alia, contending that it had taken into consideration only two
certificates and not the third one which are as under :
B
c
D
S. No.
Name of the firm
period
1.
Deep Precision Industries,
15.5.2000
Rohtak
to
15.7.2002
2.
Sunita Industries, Rohtak
15.8.2003
to
20.2.2006
7. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant would urge:
(1)
From a perusal of the two certificates, it would
appear, even if they are held to be valid, the period
of practical experience gained by the respondent
No.4 would be less than five years.
(2)
The certificates were issued by the industries which
E
were not existing as no provident fund was
deposited by them.
8. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent, on the other hand, urged that from a bare
perusal of the conditions laid down for appointment to the post
F of Mechanist Grinder Instructor, it would be evident that the
same includes the period mentioned at column (ii) and in view
of the fact that the respondent No.4 had produced training
certificate from a recognized institute which is of two years
G
H
course, he must be held to have the requisite qualification.
So far as the second contention of Ms. Bhati is concerned,
the learned counsel urged that the same had not been raised
before the High Court.
It was furthermore urged that even assuming that no
'
KRISriAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
1023
.
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
provident fund was deposited, so far as the respondent No.4
A
is concerned, the same would not mean that the industries do
not exist.
9. It is now a well settled principle of law that a candidate
not having the requisite qualifications would not be entitled to
8
be appointed in public employment. There is no dispute that
the respondent No.4 fulfills the essential qualifications specified
.in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv). The third essential qualification laid
down in the advertisement is a five years practical/teaching
experience. The said period of five years, as has rightly been
, pointed out, would include the period mentioned at column
C
No.(ii), namely, a certificate course undergone by the candidate
concerned. It has not been disputed that the said certificate
course is of two years. Frdr:ii a perusal of the judgment passed
by the High Court, it would furthermore appear that the
respondent No.4 was an apprentice in Maruti Udyog for a
D
period of one year. The said period must also be counted.
It has categorically been stated before the High Court as
also before us that the Commission did not take into
consideration the third certificate. We are, therefore, not in a
E
position to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that
the respondent No.4 did not fulfill the requisite essential
qualifications.
So far as the second contention raised by the appellant is
concerned, admittedly, the same having not been raised before
F
the High Court cannot be permitted to be raised before this
Court. Had such contention been raised before the High Court,
the respondents could have met the same. It is now well settled
that a new point should not ordinarily be allowed to be raised
before this Court for the first time.
G
10. In any event, non-deposit of the provident fund in terms
of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009]10 S.C.R.
A establishments are non-existing. Provident fund need to be
B
deposited provided the said Act applies. It may be even
l-t'~
otherwise a violation of the provisions of the said Act, but only
by reason thereof, the certificates granted by them would not
be treated to be nullities.
11. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts
and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.