KRISHAN LALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                       [2009] 10 S.C.R. 1018


A                          KRISHAN LAL                                1""_,..
                                 v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4385 of 2009)
                          JULY 16, 2009
B
            [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

                                                                     t •
         SERVICE LAW:

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
         the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous F
         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; 1024-
         A)

             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.                                                          ~   ,

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
        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.

       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
us.

       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 :

           S. No.   Name of the firm                 period

           1.       Deep Precision Industries,       15.5.2000
B                   Rohtak                              to
                                                     15.7.2002

           2.       Sunita Industries, Rohtak        15.8.2003
                                                        to
c                                                    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
D               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
  course, he must be held to have the requisite qualification.
G
       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
H
            '
      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
  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.
B        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.