REPORTABLE

IN THE 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

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement for  

the  post  of  Mechanist  Grinder  Instructor  in  newspapers  laying  down the  

following essential qualifications :

“(i) Matriculation/Senior  Secondary/10th pass  under 10+2 scheme.

(ii) National  Trade  certificate  and  Craft  Instructor  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.

(iv) Knowledge of Hindi upto 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 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.

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 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,  (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  

2

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  2½   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.”

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant is before us.

6. 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 :

S.  No.

Name of the firm period

1. Deep  Precision  Industries,  Rohtak

15.5.2000 to

15.7.2002 2. Sunita Industries, Rohtak 15.8.2003  

to 20.2.2006

3

7. Ms.  Aishwarya  Bhati,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant would urge:

(1) From 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.

(2) The certificates were issued by the industries which 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  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.   

It was 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.

4

9. 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 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 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 the High Court cannot be  

permitted to be raised before this Court.  Had such contention been raised  

5

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.   

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 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 nullities.

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.

……………………….J.  [S.B. Sinha]

`

……………………..…J.     [Deepak Verma]

New Delhi; July 16, 2009

6