Ankur Das And 2 Ors vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited And 2 Ors
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/17
GAHC010033512026
2026:GAU-AS:12809
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7069/2024
ANKUR DAS AND 2 ORS
S/O GAJEN DAS
R/O BORBARI
THOMKI TILLA
HOUSE NO.-11
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
2: DEBENGA DUTTA
S/O DIPEN DUTTA
R/O BOKAKHAT
WARD NO-4
DIST-GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
3: BHARAT KUMAR YADAV
S/O SHYAM VER YADAV
R/O VILL-DEVRAY KA PURWA
P.O.-DIBIYAPUR
DIST-AURAIYA
STATE- UTTAR PRADESH
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE
4TH FLOOR
EAST POINT TOWER
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI
PIN CODE-781021
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/17
2:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
HUMAN RESOURCE
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
GUWAHATI REFINERY
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM
3:THE DIRECTOR
BOARD OF PRACTICAL TRAINING (EASTERN REGION)
BLOCK-EA
SECTOR-1
(OPPOSITE LABONY ESTATE)
SALT LAKE CITY
KOLKATA
PIN-700064
------------
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. F. Khan
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. N. Deka, Sr. Adv.; Mr. M. Gogoi
:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.09.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment : N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N.
Page No.# 3/17
Deka, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Gogoi, learned counsel for all
the respondents.
2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the action
of the respondent authorities in not considering their candidature for the post of
Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U), pursuant to the recruitment process
initiated by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, on the ground that the
petitioners appeared in the Computer Based Test (CBT) held on 29.09.2024, but
despite having participated in the CBT, they were not shortlisted for the
subsequent stages of Document Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical
Test when the result was published on 16.12.2024.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had applied for
apprenticeship training at the Guwahati Refinery pursuant to advertisement
dated 22.10.2021 in the trade of Boiler Attendant. Pursuant thereto, the
petitioners appeared in the written examination and were selected and joined as
trainees at the Guwahati Refinery in February, 2022. The petitioners thereafter
completed two years' apprenticeship training as Trade Apprentice (Boiler
Attendant) under the Apprentices Act, 1961/1973 from 11.02.2022 to
11.02.2024.
4. After completion of the apprenticeship training, provisional certificates were
issued to the petitioners wherein the trade was mentioned as “Boiler Attendant”.
The provisional certificates further mentioned that the final certificate would be
issued by the Board of Practical Training/Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship
Training as per the registration of the apprentices in the concerned portal.
5. The final Certificates of Proficiency issued by the Board of Practical
Page No.# 4/17
Training/Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, however, mentioned
the subject field as “Bachelor of Science” instead of “Boiler Attendant”. The
petitioners had already obtained their respective B.Sc. qualifications prior to
undergoing the apprenticeship training. Petitioner No.1 had completed his B.Sc.
from Kaziranga University in the year 2021, petitioner No.2 from C.N.B. College,
Bokakhat in the year 2019 and petitioner No.3 from Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj
University, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2021.
6. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Refineries and Pipelines Division), vide
advertisement dated 20.07.2024, notified/advertised for recruitment of Non-
Executive personnel, inviting applications for various posts including Junior
Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-202, for 6 (Six) refineries including
Guwahati, prescribing the qualification parameters. Insofar as the qualification
prescribed for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-202,
is concerned, the advertisement prescribed, inter alia, a National Apprenticeship
Certificate in Boiler Attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961, with due
endorsement of equivalence to the Second-Class Boiler Attendant Certificate of
Competency by the competent Boiler Authority of the State of the Refinery Unit
for which the candidate had applied. The advertisement further prescribed
31.07.2024 as the cut-off date for the purposes of meeting age criteria and for
possession of prescribed qualification and work experience, as applicable. The
petitioners applied and participated in the Computer Based Test held on
29.09.2024 for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-
202, and secured marks above the prescribed cut-off. However, when the result
was published on 16.12.2024, they were not shortlisted for the subsequent
stages of Document Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test.
Page No.# 5/17
7. The petitioners have stated that the General Manager (HR), IOCL, Guwahati
Refinery, by letters dated 23.10.2024, 25.10.2024 and 28.10.2024, had
addressed the Chief Inspector of Boilers, Assam (I/C), requesting endorsement
of the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler Trade as equivalent to BCC
Second Class in favour of the respective petitioners. The said communications
specifically stated that due to a technical error, apprentices in the Boiler trade
had been issued certificates in B.Sc. instead of Boiler trade by the National
Apprenticeship Portal.
8. The respondent authorities thereafter addressed another communication
dated 01.11.2024 to the Director, Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region,
seeking correction of the trade mentioned in the apprenticeship certificates of
the petitioners. The said communication also stated that, due to the mistake in
the certificates issued by the concerned authorities, the petitioners were facing
difficulty in getting the certificates endorsed by the Chief Inspector of Boilers
and that they had successfully completed their two-year apprenticeship
programme in the Boiler Attendant trade.
9. The Chief Inspector of Boilers, Assam (I/C), however, by letter dated
20.11.2024, informed petitioner No.1 that the Certificate of Proficiency issued to
him under the Apprentices Act, 1961, was in the subject field of “Bachelor of
Science” and not “Boiler Attendant” explicitly and, therefore, the certificate
could not be endorsed as equivalent to the Second Class Boiler Attendant after
adhering to Section 24(2) of the Boiler Attendant Rules, 2011.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had
actually undergone the entire two-year apprenticeship training in the Boiler
Attendant trade and had successfully completed the same on 11.02.2024. It is
Page No.# 6/17
contended that the provisional certificates issued to them correctly recorded
their trade as “Boiler Attendant” and that the subsequent mention of “Bachelor
of Science” in the final Certificates of Proficiency was a technical error in the
certificates issued through the concerned portal. Learned counsel further
submits that the Director, Board of Practical Training (Eastern Region), by
communication dated 07.11.2024, had clarified that the petitioners had
successfully completed 24 months' Graduate Apprenticeship in the optional
trade of Boiler Attendant at the Guwahati Refinery and that there was no
apprenticeship course or training in Bachelor of Science at the Guwahati
Refinery.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners had already obtained
their B.Sc. qualifications from different universities much prior to undergoing the
apprenticeship training and had never undergone any B.Sc. course at the Indian
Oil Corporation Limited under the Apprentices Act, 1961. It is contended that
there was, therefore, no basis for the final Certificates of Proficiency to describe
the subject field as “Bachelor of Science” when the training actually undergone
by the petitioners was in the Boiler Attendant trade.
12. Learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities themselves
acknowledged the discrepancy in the certificates and took steps for its
rectification. Reference has been made to the letters dated 23.10.2024,
25.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 addressed to the Chief Inspector of Boilers, Assam,
as well as the subsequent letter dated 01.11.2024 addressed to the Board of
Practical Training, Eastern Region. It is contended that these communications,
coupled with the clarification issued by the Board of Practical Training, establish
that the petitioners had undergone and completed their apprenticeship training
Page No.# 7/17
in the Boiler Attendant trade and that the discrepancy appearing in the final
Certificates of Proficiency was not on account of the training actually undergone
by them.
13. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on
account of the error in the issuance of the final Certificates of Proficiency. It is
contended that the petitioners had completed the requisite apprenticeship
training much before the recruitment process and that the provisional
certificates themselves correctly reflected the trade in which they had
undergone training. Learned counsel further submits that the delay in issuance
of the final Certificates of Proficiency, which came to be issued only on
09.08.2024, cannot be held against the petitioners when their apprenticeship
training had already been completed and the marks obtained by them had been
uploaded in April, 2024. The petitioners contend that the delay in issuance of
the certificates was attributable to the process followed by the respondents in
relation to the apprenticeship records and that they ought not to be deprived of
consideration on that account.
14. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners had participated in the CBT
held on 29.09.2024 and had secured 62, 66 and 63 marks respectively, against
the cut-off of 44 marks, but were nevertheless not called for Document
Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test. It is contended that the
petitioners are not seeking appointment without undergoing the prescribed
selection process, but only an opportunity to participate in the subsequent
stages thereof. Having regard to the actual training undergone by the
petitioners, the provisional certificates issued by the Guwahati Refinery, the
subsequent clarification regarding their apprenticeship training and the steps
Page No.# 8/17
taken by the respondent authorities for correction of the final certificates, it is
submitted that the petitioners ought not to have been excluded from the
selection process. It is accordingly submitted that the action in not shortlisting
the petitioners is liable to be interfered with and appropriate directions may be
issued permitting them to participate in the subsequent stages of the
recruitment process.
15. Mr. N. Deka, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the
other hand, submits that the candidature of the petitioners was required to be
considered strictly in terms of the eligibility conditions prescribed in the
recruitment advertisement. It is submitted that for the post of Junior
Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code 202, a candidate seeking to rely
upon the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler Attendant was required to
produce a certificate duly endorsed by the competent Boiler Authority of the
State of the Refinery Unit concerned, certifying its equivalence to the Second-
Class Boiler Attendant Certificate of Competency. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the last date prescribed for possession of the requisite qualification
was 31.07.2024, whereas the Certificates of Proficiency relied upon by the
petitioners were issued only on 09.08.2024 and, in the form in which they were
issued, did not contain the requisite endorsement of the Boiler Authority.
16. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the recruitment process contemplated
a Computer Based Test followed by Document Verification and Skill/Proficiency
and Physical Test, and that participation in the CBT did not by itself confer
eligibility for the subsequent stages. It is submitted that the candidates were
required to fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions within the period stipulated
in the advertisement and that their candidature was subject to verification of the
Page No.# 9/17
requisite documents. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the final
Certificates of Proficiency were not issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
It is stated that the petitioners had undergone their apprenticeship training
when the NATS 1.0 portal was in operation and that the particulars furnished in
the portal were those of the apprentices, with the employer establishment
having access only to the information available to it. The marks obtained in the
apprenticeship training had been uploaded in April, 2024, whereas the final
Certificates of Proficiency were issued thereafter by the concerned authority.
17. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the discrepancy in the Certificates of
Proficiency arose in the certificates issued by the concerned authority, wherein
the trade was not reflected as Boiler Attendant. It is submitted that letters dated
23.10.2024, 25.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 were thereafter addressed to the Chief
Inspector of Boilers, Assam (I/C), seeking endorsement of the National
Apprenticeship Certificates in the Boiler trade as equivalent to BCC Second
Class. It is further submitted that by letter dated 01.11.2024 addressed to the
Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region, correction of the certificates was
also sought. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said subsequent
correspondence, however, could not alter the eligibility position as on the cut-off
date prescribed in the recruitment advertisement.
18. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the contract registration forms
relied upon by the petitioners in their additional affidavit. It is submitted that
the said forms are dated 03.12.2024 and relate to registrations in the NAPS
portal, whereas the apprenticeship training undergone by the petitioners at the
Guwahati Refinery had been completed under the NATS 1.0 portal. It is
submitted that the particulars and registration details appearing in the
Page No.# 10/17
subsequent documents are different from those relating to the apprenticeship
training undergone by the petitioners at the Guwahati Refinery and that the
subsequent registration, therefore, cannot establish possession of the prescribed
qualification as on 31.07.2024.
19. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the marks obtained by the petitioners
in their apprenticeship training had already been uploaded in April, 2024 and
that there was no delay on the part of the Guwahati Refinery in uploading the
same. It is further submitted that the NATS 1.0 portal was subsequently taken
offline and was finally shut down after 31.03.2025, and therefore the precise
date of uploading of the marks is no longer retrievable. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the role of the employer establishment was confined to the matters
within its control and that the issuance of the final Certificates of Proficiency
was by the concerned authority. The discrepancy appearing in the final
certificates, therefore, could not be treated as a failure on the part of the
respondent authorities to upload the marks or as a basis for treating the
petitioners as eligible contrary to the conditions of the advertisement.
20. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, irrespective of the fact that the
petitioners had completed their apprenticeship training prior to the cut-off date,
the qualification relied upon by them for the purpose of the recruitment process
had to be established in the manner prescribed in the advertisement and within
the period stipulated therein. The Certificates of Proficiency relied upon by the
petitioners were issued only on 09.08.2024 and, besides being subsequent to
the cut-off date of 31.07.2024, did not contain the requisite endorsement of
equivalence by the competent Boiler Authority. It is accordingly submitted that
neither the subsequent correspondence for correction or endorsement of the
Page No.# 11/17
certificates nor the petitioners' participation in the CBT and their securing marks
above the prescribed cut-off could cure the deficiency in eligibility. Learned
Senior Counsel accordingly submits that the petitioners were not entitled to be
shortlisted for the subsequent stages of the recruitment process and therefore,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
21. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the materials available on record.
22. The petitioners had undergone apprenticeship training in the Boiler
Attendant trade at the Guwahati Refinery. The provisional certificates issued
after completion of the training recorded the trade as “Boiler Attendant”. The
final Certificates of Proficiency, however, issued on 09.08.2024, mentioned the
subject field as “Bachelor of Science”. The subsequent correspondence placed
on record shows that steps were taken for obtaining the requisite endorsement
from the Boiler Authority and for correction of the trade mentioned in the
certificates.
23. The fact that the petitioners had undergone apprenticeship training in the
Boiler Attendant trade is therefore not in dispute from the materials placed
before the Court. The correspondence dated 23.10.2024, 25.10.2024 and
28.10.2024, as also the communication dated 01.11.2024, shows that the
discrepancy in the certificates was brought to the notice of the concerned
authorities and that steps were taken for its correction. The communication
dated 07.11.2024 issued by the Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region, also
records the position regarding completion of the apprenticeship training by the
petitioners in the optional trade of Boiler Attendant. The Chief Inspector of
Boilers, Assam (I/C), however, by communication dated 20.11.2024, declined to
Page No.# 12/17
endorse the certificate of petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the subject field
mentioned therein was “Bachelor of Science” and not “Boiler Attendant”.
24. The aforesaid circumstances explain the grievance of the petitioners
regarding the certificates issued to them. The issue, however, cannot be decided
only with reference to the fact that the petitioners had undergone the
apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade. The recruitment in
question was governed by the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, and
the candidature of the petitioners was required to be examined with reference
to the eligibility requirements prescribed therein.
25. An advertisement was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(Refineries and Pipelines Division) on 20.07.2024 for recruitment to various
posts of Non-Executive personnel, including Junior Engineering Assistant-IV
(P&U), Post Code-202, for 6 (Six) refineries including Guwahati. For the post of
Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), Post Code-202, the prescribed eligibility
criteria included possession of a National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler
Attendant under the Apprentices Act, 1961, duly endorsed as equivalent to the
Second-Class Boiler Attendant Certificate of Competency by the competent
Boiler Authority of the State of the Refinery Unit for which the candidate had
applied. The advertisement further stipulated 31.07.2024 as the cut-off date for
possession of the prescribed qualification and work experience.
26. In the present case, the final Certificates of Proficiency relied upon by the
petitioners were issued only on 09.08.2024. Thus, on the date prescribed in the
recruitment process, the certificates relied upon by the petitioners had not been
issued. Further, the certificates in the form in which they were issued did not
contain the requisite endorsement of equivalence by the competent Boiler
Page No.# 13/17
Authority. The subsequent correspondence seeking correction of the certificates
or obtaining the requisite endorsement was also after the prescribed cut-off
date.
27. The question as to whether eligibility for appointment is to be determined
with reference to the date prescribed in the recruitment process has been
considered by the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of
Rajasthan, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 . The relevance of the
prescribed date for determining whether a candidate possessed the requisite
qualification was recognised in the said decision. The principle was thereafter
considered in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, reported in (2007)
4 SCC 54 , wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that eligibility has to be
determined with reference to the date prescribed for the purpose and that a
qualification acquired after the relevant date cannot ordinarily be taken into
consideration for making a candidate eligible.
28. The same principle was reiterated in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State
(NCT of Delhi) and Others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 . The Supreme
Court held that where the recruitment advertisement prescribes a particular
date for possession of the requisite qualification, the candidate must satisfy the
prescribed requirement on that date and subsequent acquiring of the
qualification cannot be relied upon to make an otherwise ineligible candidate
eligible. The date prescribed in the recruitment process cannot, therefore, be
displaced merely because the candidate acquires the qualification at a later
stage.
29. The aforesaid position was again considered by the Supreme Court in
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. v. Dharminder
Page No.# 14/17
Singh, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491 . In that case, the
advertisement dated 17.07.2018 prescribed matriculation as the essential
qualification and an ITI qualification in the prescribed trade as the desirable
qualification. The last date for submission of applications was 18.08.2018. The
candidate did not possess the technical qualification on that date and acquired
the same only on 19.12.2018. Although he had acquired the qualification by the
date of interview, the Supreme Court held that the cut-off date for acquiring the
qualification advertised was the last date for submission of the application. The
Supreme Court also rejected the contention that the candidate had appeared in
the examination for the technical qualification before the prescribed date,
observing in substance that undergoing the process for acquiring the
qualification could not substitute the requirement of possessing the qualification
within the stipulated period.
30. The aforesaid decisions make it clear that the eligibility of a candidate is to
be assessed with reference to the date prescribed in the recruitment process.
The cut-off date is intended to ensure that all candidates are assessed on the
basis of the same eligibility requirements as they stood on the date fixed by the
recruiting authority. Consequently, a qualification acquired or a document issued
after the prescribed date cannot ordinarily be taken into account for establishing
eligibility, unless the terms of the recruitment process themselves permit such
subsequent acquisition. In the present case, therefore, the petitioners' eligibility
has to be examined with reference to 31.07.2024, being the date prescribed in
the advertisement.
31. In the present case, the petitioners had admittedly completed their
apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade before the cut-off date.
Page No.# 15/17
However, the final Certificates of Proficiency relied upon by them were issued
only on 09.08.2024, after the cut-off date of 31.07.2024. Moreover, the
certificates as issued did not contain the requisite endorsement of equivalence
by the competent Boiler Authority. The subsequent steps taken for correction of
the certificates and for obtaining the endorsement cannot retrospectively alter
the position as it stood on 31.07.2024.
32. The submission that the petitioners ought not to suffer for the discrepancy
appearing in the final Certificates of Proficiency also cannot, by itself, result in a
direction to disregard the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement.
The materials do indicate that the discrepancy was noticed and that steps were
taken thereafter for its correction. Nevertheless, the Court is required to apply
the eligibility condition governing the recruitment process in the manner in
which it was prescribed.
33. The fact that the petitioners participated in the Computer Based Test and
secured marks above the prescribed cut-off also does not alter the position.
Clearing the CBT could only enable a candidate who otherwise fulfilled the
prescribed eligibility conditions to proceed to the subsequent stages of the
selection process. Participation in the CBT cannot dispense with the requirement
of possessing the prescribed qualification within the period stipulated in the
advertisement.
34. The subsequent contract registration forms relied upon by the petitioners
also cannot assist them in establishing eligibility as on the relevant date. Those
documents are dated 03.12.2024 and relate to subsequent registrations in the
NAPS portal, whereas the apprenticeship training at the Guwahati Refinery was
under the NATS 1.0 portal. The subsequent documents, therefore, cannot
Page No.# 16/17
establish possession of the qualification in the form prescribed by the
recruitment process as on 31.07.2024.
35. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners had actually
undergone apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade and that the
discrepancy appearing in the final Certificates of Proficiency was not shown to
have arisen from any change in the trade in which the petitioners had
undergone training. The subsequent correspondence also shows that the
discrepancy was noticed and that steps were taken for correction. These
circumstances may explain the predicament in which the petitioners have found
themselves. They cannot, however, have the effect of extending the cut-off date
prescribed in the recruitment advertisement or of treating the certificates issued
on 09.08.2024 as though they had been issued on or before 31.07.2024.
36. The relief sought by the petitioners is for permitting them to participate in
the subsequent stages of the selection process. Such relief, however, cannot be
granted without treating them as eligible notwithstanding the date on which the
prescribed certificates were issued and the absence of the requisite
endorsement as on the relevant date. The performance of the petitioners in the
CBT, therefore, cannot confer upon them a right to proceed to Document
Verification and Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test contrary to the eligibility
condition contained in the advertisement.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere
with the decision of the respondent authorities in not shortlisting the petitioners
for the subsequent stages of the recruitment process.
38. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no
Page No.# 17/17
order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant