Lal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.  INSC 1227 (16 July 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4385 OF
2009 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.2931 of 2009) Krishan Lal ... Appellant Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement for
the post of Mechanist Grinder Instructor in newspapers laying down the
following essential qualifications :
Matriculation/Senior Secondary/10th pass under 10+2 scheme.
National Trade certificate and Craft Instructor Training course in concerned
Five years practical/teaching experience including the period mentioned at (ii)
above from a reputed Industrial concern or recognized Institute.
Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric."
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 the said selection and consequent appointment, appellant
herein filed a writ petition before the High Court, inter alia, 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 working at different places at the same time and, thus, the same could not
have been taken into consideration.
The High Court rejected the said contention, stating:
is not disputed that on the basis of certificate mentioned at Sr. No.1,
requisite benefit was given to respondent No.4 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.
regard to above mentioned two certificates, (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 of 3 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 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. 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."
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant is before us.
The respondent No.1 has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia,
contending that it had taken into consideration only two certificates and not
the third one which are as under :
of the firm period No. 1. Deep Precision Industries, 15.5.2000 Rohtak to
Industries, Rohtak 15.8.2003 to 20.2.2006 4
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would urge:
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.
certificates were issued by the industries which were not existing as no
provident fund was deposited by them.
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 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 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.
furthermore urged that even assuming that no provident fund was deposited, so
far as the respondent No.4 is concerned, the same would not mean that the
industries do not exist.
It is now a well settled principle of law that a candidate not having
the requisite qualifications would not be entitled to 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 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 furthermore appear that the respondent No.4 was an
apprentice in Maruti Udyog for a period of one year. The said period must also
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 position to agree with the learned counsel for the
appellant that the respondent No.4 did not fulfill the requisite essential
So far as
the second contention raised by the appellant is concerned, admittedly, the
same having not been raised before the High Court cannot be permitted to be raised
before this Court. Had such contention been raised 6 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
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 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 certificates granted by them would not be treated to be
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.
............................J. [S.B. Sinha]
.............................J. [Deepak Verma]