Raj Kumar v. Cochin Shipyard Limited and Chief General Manager (HR and TRG), Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.26750 OF 2020(P)** ## **PETITIONER:** **RAJ KUMAR AGED 27 YEARS S/O. PREM SINGH, LALGARHI, BITHANA POST, ALIIGARH DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH PIN 202 002 NOW RESIDING AT ROAD NO. 10E5/2, NEWTOWN, CHHOTODIGARHI, WEST BURDWAN DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL PIN 713 326** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)** ## **RESPONDENTS:-** |**1**|**COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PERUMANOOR P.O,**| ||**KERALA, COCHIN PIN 682 015**| |**2**|**CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND TRG),**| ||**COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, ADMIN**| ||**PERUMANOOR P.O,**| ||**COCHIN 682 015.**| **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-012021, THE COURT ON 09-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.26750/2020 2 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.26750 of 2020** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9[th] day of February, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** - 1.The short issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner was eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Structural) in the 1[st] respondent on the basis of Ext. P5 advertisement. 2.The petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 application for the post of Assistant Engineer (Structural) in response to Ext.P5. The qualifications provided for the post of Assistant Engineer (Structural) in Ext.P5, specifically included 7 years experience in structural fitting works preferably in a Shipyard/Dockyard or heavy engineering company or Government Establishment, out of which two years should be in a supervisory grade. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 service certificate from the Saksham Die Making and Die Casting Udyogik Sahkari Samiti Ltd. to show supervisory experience. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by an inadvertent mistake, he had W.P.(C).No.26750/2020 3 stated that he had worked as Supervisor in the establishment from 01.02.2012 to 31.10.2013. It is stated that it was a nonsubstantial and inconsequential mistake which should not have been taken into account. 3.It is submitted that Ext.P10 result of the selection would show that one post of Assistant Engineer (Structural) reserved for OBC remains unfilled for want of suitable candidates. Ext.P11, which shows the registration numbers of candidates not shortlisted for selection with the reasons thereof, would show that the petitioner's application was rejected for the reason that he had less than 2 years of experience in supervisory grade. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he actually had 2 years experience in the supervisory grade. Ext. P14 certificate dated 23.11.2020 is produced in support of the above contention. It is further submitted that even if it is admitted that the petitioner had joined as a trainee, he had actually worked in the supervisory cadre for the entire length of his employment, as evidenced from Ext.P3 and that as such, his experience in the 4 W.P.(C).No.26750/2020 supervisory capacity from 01.08.2011 to 31.10.2013 is liable to be **c** onsidered in accordance with law. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of this Court in **Indian Rare Earths Ltd. v. John** [2013 (4) KLT 430] to contend that service rendered in a post even as a trainee is liable to be taken note of, in the absence of any specification that the appointment is as an apprentice. Placing reliance on an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Nandanan v. Jyothish Kumar** [2004 (1) KLT 142], it is contented that it is only where the initial appointment is specifically as a pre-service trainee that the said period of service can be excluded. - 5.A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents. It is contented that the petitioner himself had specifically stated in his application that he had only 1 year 8 months and 30 days of experience in the supervisory capacity. This was borne out from Ext.P3 certificate as well, where his designation on appointment is shown as Diploma Trainee and W.P.(C).No.26750/2020 5 his date of leaving is shown as 31.10.2013 and his designation at the time of leaving is shown as Supervisor. 6.It is stated that the petitioner had joined as trainee and it was only after an year of training that he was regularized. If the regularization after one year is taken note of, the petitioner would have only one year's experience in the supervisory capacity. Ext.P14 produced by the petitioner would also show that the petitioner's experience in the supervisory capacity was only as stated in Ext.P3. It is further submitted that there was only one vacancy in the OBC quota and out of the 10 OBC candidates shortlisted, the petitioner was in the 7[th] position in the order of merit and that the candidature of all the 10 persons were rejected for want of required experience. 7.I have considered the contentions advanced. The notification specifies that an applicant should have experience in a supervisory capacity of at least 2 years. Petitioner in this application has specifically stated that his experience in the supervisory capacity was only from 01.02.2012 to 31.10.2013. W.P.(C).No.26750/2020 6 This falls short of the 2 years of supervisory experience required. Ext.P3, which was admittedly a service certificate produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions with regard to experience would also show that the petitioner's date of joining was 01.08.2011 and his designation on joining was Diploma Trainee **.** As on the date of his leaving, that is, on 31.10.2013 his designation was 'Supervisor'. Ext.P14 is the certificate issued on 23.11.2020. It states that the petitioner joined duty of the Saksham Die Making and Die Casting Udyogik Sahkari Samiti Ltd. on 01.08.2011. It is stated that after the completion of the one year period, including six months training, he was regularized in service and that he continued in the post till 31.10.2013. Ext.P14 is seen dated 23.11.2020. The petitioner cannot rely on any certificate issued post the selection to substantiate his claims of his qualifications as per the notification. Even in case the contention is accepted, that would not show that the petitioner had experience in the supervisory capacity for the required two years. 7 W.P.(C).No.26750/2020 - 8.The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the counting of the period of training for qualifying service for the purpose of gratuity or promotion have no application in the instant case, where the specific requirement in Ext.P4 was for experience in a supervisory capacity. 9. In the light of the application submitted by the petitioner and Ext.P3 certificate, which was produced at the time of the selection, the rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground that he did not have the required experience in a supervisory capacity cannot be said to be illegal. The writ petition, therefore, fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. **==> picture [27 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.26750/2020 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NON CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD 7/8/20** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD 24-09-2013 ISSUED BY VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE DTD 31-10-2013 ISSUED BY SAKSHAM DIE MAKING AND DIE CASTING UDYOGIKSAHKARISAMITI LTD TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD TO THE PETITIONER DTD 21-10-2013** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DTD 2108-2019 PUT OUT BY THE RESPONDENTCOMPANY** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION DTD 3008-2019 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL) BEFORE THE RESPONDENT COMPANY** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER FOR OBJECTIVE TYPE TEST (PHASE-1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER FOR DESCRIPTIVE TYPE TEST (PHASE-II) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER FOR CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** W.P.(C).No.26750/2020 9 **EXHIBIT P10** **EXHIBIT P11** **EXHIBIT P12** **EXHIBIT P13** **EXHIBIT P14** **EXHIBIT P15** **TRUE COPY OF SELCT LIST DTD 17-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CIRCULAR DTD 17-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P AND A)** **TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 21-102020 PRESENTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER DTD 12-112020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **TRUE COPY OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE DTD 23-11-2020 FROM SAKTHAM DIE MAKING AND DIE CASTING UDYOGIK SAHKARI SAMITHI LTD** **TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER TD 15/7/2011 ISSUED BY SANKSHAM IE MAKING AN DIE CASTING UYOGIK SAHKARI SAMITHI LT** True copy PS to Judge