WP/12884/2007 of Y.Rajendra Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., on 31 December 2007

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in refusing the candidature of the petitionersfor provisional appointment to the post of Junior Lineman on theground that their I.T.I. Electrical qualification is not under the NationalCouncil for Training in Vocational Trades (N.C.T.V.T.) pattern asarbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents toforthwith reinstate the petitioners as Junior Lineman with effect fromthe date of refusal of their candidature for provisional appointment tothe said post with all consequential benefits.

According to the petitioners, they have passed S.S.C. and I.T.I.(Electrical Trade) from Sri Lakshmi Memorial Industrial TrainingCentre, Penumantra, West Godavari District – 7[th] respondent herein. They were engaged as Shift Operators with the former contractors ofthe erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. They had put inservice upto 10 years and worked under the control of the 4[th]respondent in various places of West Godavari District. In the year2006, regular recruitment had taken place for the post of JuniorLineman (YCB). All the petitioners were interviewed and weresubjected to pole climbing test also. All of them were successful andselected to the post of Junior Lineman. They were also given postingorders by the respective Divisional Electrical Engineers (respondents 1 to 3). In fact, according to the petitioners, they all joined as JuniorLineman on 16-1-2007 and discharging their duties. While that beingso, appointment orders were kept in abeyance on 2-2-2007and sent the I.T.I. certificates held by them to the Director of TechnicalEducation – 5[th] respondent – for verification of their genuineness. Respondent No.5 did not comment anything adversely regarding thegenuineness of the certificates, but advised respondents 1 to 3 tocontact the Director of Employment and Training, Andhra Pradesh –6[th] respondent - with regard to equivalency of Industrial SchoolLeaving Certificate (I.S.L.C.) with that of I.T.I. certificate. Thereafter, itappears, 6[th] respondent informed respondents 1 to 3 that the I.T.I.certificates are not equivalent to N.C.T.V.T. pattern. Subsequently,respondents 1 to 3 passed various orders on 17-4-2007 refusing thecandidature of the petitioners for provisional appointment to the post ofJunior Lineman (Y.C.B.) on the ground that ITI certificates possessedby them are not recognized under N.C.T.V.T. pattern. Therespondents cannot expect from them to produce N.C.T.V.T. patterncertificate, when their ITI certificates are recognized by the 5[th]respondent, who is the authority concerned in this regard andmoreover, State Government has already given a clarification thatISLC is equivalent to ITI certificate awarded under N.C.T.V.T. pattern;therefore, the rejection of their candidature for appointment to the postof Junior Lineman is arbitrary and illegal.

A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to4 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated thatEastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Andhra Pradesh, hastaken a decision to appoint Junior Linemen on contract basis andnotified 349 posts under Eluru Operation Circle. A notification dated 3-10-2006 was issued calling for applications from eligible candidates.

After receipt of applications, call letters were sent to the candidates toappear for test and interview on 29-12-2006 and 30-12-2006. Aprovisional selection list was prepared and candidates selected wereasked to produce relevant certificates and provisional appointmentorders dated 8-1-2007/9-1-2007 were given to the candidates by therespective Divisional Engineers based on counselling of thecandidates. It was clearly mentioned in the provisional appointmentorders that the appointments were subject to verification ofgenuineness of the certificates. Petitioners produced I.T.I. certificatesissued by the 7[th] respondent-Institute. Doubts were expressed withregard to the genuineness of the certificates produced by thecandidates, both in the Press and also through anonymous calls. Therefore, the certificates of the petitioners were sent for verification tothe 5[th] respondent and the appointment orders were kept in abeyanceby an Order dated 2-2-2007. Respondent No.5 replied by letters dated 23-2-2007 and 15-3-2007 stating that thecountersigning on the certificates issued by the Management isdispensed with and asked to get the clarification from the concernedManagement and further advised to approach the 6[th] respondent, whois dealing with the subject, regarding equivalency of ISLC with that ofITI certificate. On the letters of respondents 1 to 3, the 6[th] respondentclarified that the ITI certificates are not equivalent to N.C.T.V.T.pattern. On the basis of this clarification, appointment orders, whichwere kept in abeyance, were cancelled by an Order dated 7-4-2007. The Orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 are quite legal and valid. When there was an ambiguity with regard to the relevant certificates,the concerned authorities clarified as to the genuineness of thecertificates and certified that those certificates were not equivalent to N.C.T.V.T. pattern and not recognized under NCVT pattern of ITIcourse and not issued by that Department. Hence, the certificates ofthe petitioners are invalid. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 have no otheroption except to cancel the appointment orders.

During the course of arguments, it was felt that respondents 5 to7 also shall be made parties to the Writ Petition so that they can filecounters and explain as to the ground position i.e. whether the ITIcertificates held by the petitioners are equivalent to N.C.T.V.T. patternand whether such certificates are recognized in the State of AndhraPradesh or not.

Conclusion

Respondent No.5, though did not file a counter in this case, butin the identical case i.e. Writ Petition No.12883 of 2007 filed a counterstating that the Industrial Training Schools were intended to imparttraining to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and EconomicallyBackward Class students in the recognized Trades. Every year,recognition was accorded to these Industrial Schools to impart trainingin the recognized courses. After successful completion of training inthe Trades, these Industrial Schools used to conduct examinationsand award certificates to the passed out candidates in their respectiveTrades in the shape of Industrial School Leaving Certificates, gettingthem countersigned by the Director of Technical Education. However,subsequently, since there was no control over the conduct ofexaminations and management etc., Government issued instructionsvide their Memo No.1020/TE.01/81-2, LEN&TE (TE1) Department,dated 22-8-1981 dispensing with the practice of countersigning theISLCs by the Director of Technical Education with immediate effect. Accordingly, the managements of Industrial Schools were informedvide Office Circular Memo No.H5/6116/81, dated 5-9-1981 that thepractice of countersigning the ISLCs by the Director of Technical Education is dispensed with and the managements themselves wouldbe wholly responsible for conducting the examinations properly andissue certificates to the successful candidates in future. When thecertificates held by the petitioners were referred to the 6[th] respondentby the 1[st] respondent, the above position was informed to the 1[st]respondent vide Office letter No.11/2142/07, dated 15-3-007. Further,with regard to equivalency of ISLC with that of ITI certificate, the 1[st]respondent was advised to approach the 6[th] respondent, since the 5[th]respondent was dealing with the subject of Engineering Education atDiploma level and the 6[th] respondent is dealing with ITI courses in theState. It is also stated that for the ISLCs issued by the Managementsbeyond 1981 i.e. after issuance of Government MemoNo.1020/TE1/81-,LEN&TE (TE.01) Department, dated 22-8-1981, 5[th]respondent was not countersigning the ISLCs.

Likewise, the 6[th] respondent-Director of Employment andTraining, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad also filed a counter,whereunder it is stated that the ISLCs are issued by the 7[th]respondent-Institute, which is under the control of 5[th] respondent. Further, ISLCs are not equivalent to ITI certificates under the pattern ofNational Council for Vocational Trades. Petitioners have notappeared for the ITI examination conducted under the authority ofNCTVT by the Director General of Employment and Training, NewDelhi. Petitioners themselves have stated that the certificates issuedto them were recognized by the 5[th] respondent. The ISLCs werebeing countersigned by 5[th] respondent-Director of TechnicalEducation till 1981, but the same has been dispensed with from 22-8-1981 as per Governmental Orders. As such, the equivalency status stated to have been issued by the Department inLr.No.D3/431711/70, automatically stands withdrawn from the date ofdispensing with the practice of conducting examinations andcountersigning by the Director of Technical Education.

Respondent No.7-Sri Lakshmi Memorial Industrial TrainingCentre, Penumantra, West Godavari District filed a separate counterstating that the ISLCs issued by it under the supervision of the 5[th]respondent are held equivalent to those of N.C.T.V.T. pattern by theDirector of Employment and Training for the purpose of Governmentservice in the State Government. The students of its Institute areemployed in Government, Public Sector and other private sectorindustries. Many of them are even working in abroad. The A.P.Transco authorities without trying to elicit the different patterns of ITIinstitutions under the Director of Technical Education and the Directorof Employment and Training and without acquainting themselves withthe type of ITI courses available in the State of Andhra Pradesh,created confusion among themselves resulting in injustice to thepetitioners. The petitioners prosecuted their respective ITI courses inits Institution and their certificates are very much valid. The A.P.Transco authorities cannot refuse employment to the petitioners on theground that these certificates are not in N.C.T.V.T. pattern. It is furtherstated that the certificates held by the petitioners in the ISLC patternare those recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh throughthe Director of Technical Education. Moreover, according to the 6[th]respondent, they are equivalent to N.C.T.V.T. pattern. When thisposition is clear, it is very unfortunate as to why Transco authorities arenot in a position to appreciate the same. Even the 6[th] respondent inhis counter stated that ISLCs are issued under the control of Director ofTechnical Education-5[th] respondent. It is the Director of Technical Education, who had made the management of the institutionsresponsible for issuance of certificates. In this regard, various lettersissued by the 5[th] respondent and also the 6[th] respondent wereextracted in the counter and the same were also reflected in thecounters of respondents 5 and 6.

Heard all the learned counsel for the parties.

The facts are not much in dispute. It is admitted that thepetitioners obtained Industrial School Leaving Certificates from the 7[th]respondent-institution, which is recognized by the Government ofAndhra Pradesh. The recognition enjoyed by the 7[th] respondent isalso not in dispute. It appears, ISLCs issued by the 7[th] respondent,are recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. However, forthe purpose of N.C.T.V.T. pattern one has to do apprenticeship and geta certificate of ITI (National Trade Certificate) for the purpose ofobtaining employment outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Insofar asthe State of A.P. is concerned, ISLC is sufficient for gettingemployment. Governmental instructions issued in this regard may benecessary to be noticed. The Memo dated 5-9-1981 issued by theDirector of Technical Education, Hyderabad reads as under:

“The Correspondents of Industrial Schools mentioned in theannexure are informed that the practice of countersigning thecertificates of students of I.S.L.Cs, who are passed out from privatemanagements is dispensed with and such I.S.L.Cs will not becountersigned by the Director of Technical Education in future andthe managements themselves will be wholly responsible forconducting the examinations properly and issuing the certificates infuture as per the Government instructions contained in the referencecited.

2. The pending ISLCs will be countersignedby Sri C.M.Azmathullah, Asst.Director ofthis Office.’’

It is also relevant to notice the letter dated 7-10-1970 issued bythe Director of Employment and Training, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabadto the Training Officer, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation,Hyderabad, which reads as under:

“With reference to your letter cited, I am to state that theIndustrial School Leaving Certificate (I.S.L.C.) is an equivalentone to that of Industrial Training Institute Certificates awardedby the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades(N.C.T.V.T.) for the purposes of Government Service in StateGovernment. However, the Industrial School Leaving Certificate(I.S.L.C.) holders are not eligible for apprenticeship under theApprenticeship Act of 1961.”

The Order dated 28-11-1990 issued by the Commissioner andDirector of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to the 7[th] respondent-institute reads as under:

“Under the provisions of the Code of Regulations for IndustrialSchools – the Commissioner and Director of Technical Education,A.P., Hyderabad, is pleased to extend temporary recognition to theSri Lakshmi Memorial ITI, Penumantra, W.G. District, for the periodi.e. 01.07.1990 to 30.06.1991 to impart training in (1) Tailing andEmbriodary 2 years course lower and higher with 24 students (2)Radio and T.V. 2 years with 36 students (3) Electrician 2 yearscourse with 34 students (4) Motor Mechanism 2 years course with32 students (5) Welding 1 year course with 20 students.

2. The Management should run the schools subject to therules and regulations laid down in the code and as may be prescribedby this department from time to time in all matters.3. The Management should not approach this department forany financial assistance.”

From the above communication, it is clear that the IndustrialSchool Leaving Certificate is equivalent to that of Industrial TrainingInstitute Certificate awarded by the NCTVT for the purpose ofemployment and service in the State Government. However, ISLCholders are not eligible for apprenticeship under the ApprenticeshipAct,1961. Thus, though the ISLC cannot be equated to that of a National Trade Certificate (N.C.T.V.T. pattern), it is a certificateequivalent to ITI certificate for the purpose of Government service inthe State of Andhra Pradesh and the 7[th] respondent-Institute, which isa recognized, had issued the certificates. There is no necessity ofcountersigning the said certificates by the 5[th] respondent-Director ofTechnical Education. Therefore, the contention of respondents 1 to 4that the ISLC issued by the 7[th] respondent is not equivalent to ITIcertificate cannot be countenanced. May be, it is not equivalent toN.C.T.V.T. pattern (National Trade Certificate) under which a studentis also entitled for apprenticeship course etc., under theApprenticeship Act, but the course, as such, is recognized asequivalent to ITI by the State Government. Various letters, as noticedabove, issued by respondents 5 and 6 also would indicate that thecertificates issued by the 7[th] respondent-institute are not only genuine,but also equivalent to ITI certificates for the purpose of obtainingGovernment employment in the State of A.P. Further, it is also notdisputed that the students of 7[th] respondent-institute were selectedand appointed in various Departments of Government andCorporations in the State of Andhra Pradesh treating ISLCs asequivalent to ITI certificates.

In view of the above, the action of respondents 1 to 4 in keepingthe appointments of petitioners in abeyance and thereafter cancellingthem is arbitrary and illegal and as such, the impugned Orders are setaside. In the result, respondents 1 to 4 are directed to reinstate thepetitioners into service forthwith, with continuity of service, but withoutany back wages.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Noorder as to costs.

prk

31-12-2007