Sl.No.,Name of Trades,"Suggested trade under
NCVT
,"National Trade Certificate (NTC) of One
year BBBT in sector of Chemical COE +
NTC in Advance Module of any of the
following 6 months course advance module
i n Attendant Operator Certificate in
Specialize Module of 6 months in some
sector.","2 years of trade
“Attendant Operator
Chemical Plant
(AOCP)â€
time. They did not challenge the issue of change in venue of Trade Test/Document Verification at that time.,,
(iv) Candidatures of the petitioners was cancelled due to non possession of the requisite Trade Certificate;,,
(v) The recruitment process has since been finalized by Ordnance Factory Recruitment Centre (OFRC).â€,,
7. Aggrieved by the above order and also challenging the clarification dated 17th October 2013, O.A. No.260/00445 of 2019 was filed by the present",,
Petitioners in the CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. A further prayer was that the said clarifications and order should be declared illegal since it was",,
contrary to SRO No.185. A direction was sought to the Opposite Parties for redrawal of Final Select List keeping in view the eligibility criteria,,
prescribed in SRO No. 185 and the marks secured by the Petitioners in the written examinations vis-Ã -vis all other candidates within a reasonable,,
time to be stipulated by the tribunal.,,
8. It was noted by the CAT that although the successful candidates have been impleaded as private Respondent Nos.5 to 48 in the CAT, they had",,
neither entered appearance nor filed any counter.,,
9. After considering the reply of the official Opposite Parties/Respondents, the CAT rejected the above application. The CAT observed that the",,
contention of the Petitioners before the CAT was that “in the Rule (SRO 185) the essential qualification for the post of DBW is provided as,,
‘National Council of Trades for Vocational Training Certificate in the relevant trade failing which by ITI or equivalent Diploma certificate holder,,
whereas in the advertisement it was mentioned ‘National Council of Trades for Vocational Training (NCVT) certificate’ which is contrary to,,
Rules. It has been stated that although the applicants are having the qualification as provided in the SRO 185 and secured more than the cut off marks,,
in the selection, Respondents rejected their case on the ground of lacking essential qualification and appointed private respondents which is bad in",,
law.†The above contention was resisted by the official Opposite Parties/ Respondents inter alia pointing out that “the applicants cannot question,,
violation of conditions stipulated in the advertisement before they are appointed to the postsâ€.,,
10. In the impugned order, the CAT noted that the Respondents had “specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the candidate must have",,
essential qualification of National Council of Trades for Vocational Training (NCVT) certificate in the relevant trade for the post of DBW.†The,,
CAT’s conclusion was that the Petitioners did not possess such qualification. Further, since they had participated in the process of selection",,
knowing fully well about the required educational qualification through advertisement without any debar and subsequently, it was found that the",,
Petitioners did not possess such qualification. The Opposite Parties had rightly rejected their candidature. It was held that the Petitioners were,,
estopped under law from challenging the advertisement as being contrary to the provisions of the SRO No.185. Reference was made to the decisions,,
in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127; Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev AIR 1988 SC 1069; Praveen Singh v. State of,,
Punjab (2000) 8 SCC 633; A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka AIR 1998 SC 1050; Union of India v. Bikash Kuanar (2006) 8 SCC 192.,,
11. One development that took place was that on 16th June 2021, the Union Cabinet, Government of India decided to corporatize 41 production units",,
of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) functioning under the Department of Defence Production (DDP), Ministry of Defence. Pursuant thereto",,
“Government of India decided to transfer with effect from 1st October 2021, the management, control, operations and maintenance of these 41",,
units to seven Government companies wholly owned by the Government of India, namely (i) Munitions India Limited (ii) Armoured Vehicles Nigam",,
Limited (iii) Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited (iv) Troop Comforts Limited (v) Yantra India Limited (vi) India Optel Limited and (vii),,
Gliders India Limited.†The Court was further informed that “the Ordnance Factory at Badmal District- Bolangir, Odisha comes under the control",,
of Munitions India Limited, Ammunition Factory Khadki, Pune- 411003.â€",,
12. An objection was raised to the amending of the cause title as a result of the above changes by the Petitioners. However, by an order dated 6th",,
July 2022, the said objections were negatived by this Court and it was directed that Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 to the petition be deleted and be",,
substituted as under:,,
“(i) The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Badmal- 767070, Dist. Bolangir, Odisha",,
(ii) Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD), Munitions India Limited, 2nd Floor, Nyati Unitree, Nagar Road, Yerwada, Pune- 411006.",,
(iii) Director General Ordnance (Coordination & Service), Directorate of Ordnance, 10-A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata- 700001.â€",,
13. I.A. No.9250 of 2022 for modification of the above order was rejected by this Court on 16th September, 2022.",,
Â,,
14. Petitioner No.1 appeared in person on behalf of the Petitioners having discharged the counsel who was earlier appearing on their behalf. His,,
submissions were heard at length. Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Central Government Counsel appeared for Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4.",,
15. The case of the Petitioners is that in SRO No.185, it has been provided that for appointment to the post of Semi Skilled Workman, the candidates",,
should have educational qualification of “National Council of Trade for Vocational Training Certificate in the relevant trade failing which by ITI or,,
Diploma Certificate holder but the respondents while issuing the advertisement at Annexure-B which is appended to advertisement (page 59) have,,
mentioned that for the post of Danger Building Worker, a candidate having NAC/NTC TRADE in AOCP & PPO will only be considered which runs",,
contrary to the SRO No.185.†Reliance was placed on an order dated 28th January 2014 of the CAT, Bombay Bench in O.A. No.404 of 2012",,
where it was held that since the equivalent qualifications were not considered, the non-selection of the Applicants in that case was vitiated.",,
16. As regards questioning the selection after participating in it, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. (Major)",,
Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (decision dated 17th December 2019 in Civil Appeal No.9482 of 2019) reported at (2019) 20 SCC 17 and in particular,,
the rule concerning estoppel as under:,,
“16. It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it as iterated by this Court in a,,
plethora of judgments including Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, observing as follows:",,
“16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked,,
for viva voce test, the appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the appellant’s name had appeared in the merit list, he",,
would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The appellant invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only,,
after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the,,
selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.â€,,
The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled",,
candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the hope of getting a second chance.",,
17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed",,
procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom,",,
the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible.,,
In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection",,
process.â€,,
17. It was sought to be contended that in the present case too, when the statutory rules had been misconstrued, the mere participation by the",,
Petitioners in the selection would not preclude them from questioning the legality of the decision of the Opposite Parties.,,
18. On behalf of the Opposite Parties, reliance was placed on the replies already filed before the CAT and it was pointed out that inasmuch as the",,
Petitioners do not possess the minimum qualification as stipulated, they had rightly not been selected.",,
19. The Court must at the outset note that in the present case a specific issue was raised as regards the equivalent qualification which is clarified on,,
12th October, 2018. In terms of the said clarification, the completion of modular training was essential for recognizing the equivalent clarification. This",,
letter dated 12th October 2018 was not challenged. It was only a further clarification of the earlier letter dated 17th October, 2013.",,
20. It is not possible to accept the contention of the Petitioners that the advertisement prescribed a qualification that was inconsistent with the SRO,,
No.145. The fact remains that the Petitioners were not in possession of the relevant trade certificates. It is entirely up to the Opposite Parties to,,
decide what should be the essential qualification as well as procedure/manner of selection to the post of DBW. The Petitioners were fully aware of,,
what the essential qualification was even before they took the trade test. This is not a question of any illegality committed by the Opposite Parties in,,
applying the wrong criteria. The exception carved out in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra) by the Supreme Court of India would not apply in the,,
present case. It was not as if the rules were changed after the selection process started. The clarifications were already in place before the evaluation,,
took place. The advertisement was very clear as to what the essential required qualification was and the fact remains that the Petitioners did not,,
possess it.,,
21. It was correctly pointed out by the Opposite Parties that the large number of candidates who also did not possess the requisite minimum,,
qualification may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible in terms of what was required by the statutory rules and the advertisement.,,
In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court of India in the decision in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi( Civil",,
Appeal Nos.6116 of 2013) (para 17) are relevant.,,
22. In Note-10 of the SRO, it has been clearly mentioned that “In relation to prescribed qualifications under Column 8 of this Schedule the question",,
whether a qualification is equivalent to the prescribed qualification for any post shall be decided by the Ordnance Factory Boardâ€. The underlying,,
principle has been explained by the Supreme Court of India in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar (1993) 2 SCC 310 as under:,,
“13. …There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the employer preferring a candidate with higher qualification for service. It is well settled by a catena of,,
decisions that classification on the basis of higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative efficiency is permissible under our constitutional,,
scheme. See Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India; State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa; Md. Sujat Ali v. Union of India; Roop Chand Adlakha v. Delhi Development,,
Authority; V. Markendeya v. State of A.P. and Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University.,,
xx xx xx,,
15. ….It is true that notwithstanding the preference rule it is always open to the recruiting agency to prescribe a minimum eligibility qualification with a view to,,
demarcating and narrowing down the field of choice with the ultimate objective of permitting candidates with higher qualifications to enter the zone of,,
consideration.â€,,
23. Further, it has been explained how the Ordnance Factory at Badmal, Odisha is a chemical explosive filling factory. As per SRO No.185, required",,
qualification had to be in the relevant trade since the work of DBW (SS) relates to the dealing with chemical/explosive powders. The NAC/NTC in,,
the trade of AOCP/POP has been considered as the relevant trade for appointment to the post of DBW. Therefore, the exclusion of other trade",,
people like wiremen, electrician, fitter, machinist etc. was justified as the present Petitioners do not possess the relevant trade certificate in",,
“Attendant Operator Chemical Plant or Process Plant Operator†as stipulated in the advertisement. They possessed other trade certificates like,,
Wireman, Electrician, Fitter, Machinist etc. Consequently, the Opposite Parties cannot be faulted in holding that they did not possess the essential",,
qualification for the post.,,
24. The Petitioners also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo AIR 2007 SC 258 8to the,,
effect that even a policy decision of the State would be amenable to judicial review if they were contrary to the recruitment rules. Reliance was also,,
placed on the decision dated 31 st July 2009, the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4977 of 2009 A(jaya Kumar Das v. State of Odisha)",,
which is to the same effect.,,
25. In the present case, the Court is not satisfied that the clarification issued by the OFB on 12th October 2018 is inconsistent to SRO 145 and calls",,
for interference. On the other hand, the decision dated 14th September 2012 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6468 of 2012 S(tate of",,
Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari) appears to be relevant in the context. In para 7 of the said judgment, it was held as under:",,
“7. The appointing authority is competent to fix a higher score for selection, than the one required to be attained for mere eligibility, but by way of its natural",,
corollary, it cannot be taken to mean that eligibility/norms fixed by the statute or rules can be relaxed for this purpose to the extent that, the same may be lower than",,
the ones fixed by the statute. In a particular case, where it is so required, relaxation of even educational qualification(s) may be permissible, provided that the rules",,
empower the authority to relax such eligibility in general, or with regard to an individual case or class of cases of undue hardship. However, the said power should be",,
exercised for justifiable reasons and it must not be exercised arbitrarily, only to favour an individual. The power to relax the recruitment rules or any other rule made",,
by the State Government/Authority is conferred upon the Government/Authority to meet any emergent situation where injustice might have been caused or, is likely",,
to be caused to any person or class of persons or, where the working of the said rules might have become impossible. (Vide: State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra",,
Marwah & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2216; J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 857; and Ashok Kumar Uppal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors., AIR 1998 SC",,
2812).â€,,
26. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that no ground is made out for interference of the impugned order of the CAT. The writ",,
petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.,,
.............................................,,
