Reserved Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No.728 of 2017

Pravin Kumar & Ors. ……Petitioners

versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ….Respondents

With

Writ Petition (S/S) No.884 of 2018

Anil Singh ……Petitioner

versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. Dinesh Gehtori and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocates for the petitioners

Mr. P.C. Bisht and Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. C.S.C. along with Mr. Sushil

Vashishtha, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1

and 2

Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no.3

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

Since the controversy involved in these two

writ petitions is the same, therefore, for sake of brevity

and convenience, these writ petitions are being decided

by this common judgment.

2. In Writ Petition No.728 of 2017 (S/S),

petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to consider the petitioners for the

appointment on post of Assistant Agricultural Officer

Grade III pay scale Rs.5200-20200 grade pay Rs.2400. In

Writ Petition No.884 of 2018 (S/S), petitioner has sought

quashing of the commun ication dated 17.04.2018

2

whereby the candidature of petitioner for the post of

Assistant Agriculture Officer Grade-III has been rejected.

Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought

commanding the respondents to consider the

candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant

Agriculture Officer Grade-III on the basis of equivalent

and higher qualification of B.Sc. forestry and M.Sc

Agriculture obtained by the petitioner and consequently

select and appoint him against the vacant post as per the

order of merit of petitioner and give him all the

consequential benefit.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that third

respondent-Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection

Commission, issued an ad vertisement on 20.02.2016,

inviting applications for 96 vacant posts of Assistant

Agriculture Officer Grade-III in the pay scale of 5200-

20200 grade pay Rs.2000/- under Post Code No.04. The

minimum qualification and preferential qualification were

prescribed as under:-

Educational qualification – Graduate degree in

Agriculture from a recognized Institution or University

Preferential qualification – being other facts equal, the

candidate will be given preference in direct recruitment

who:-

(i) had served the territorial army for at least 02

years or

(ii) possess “B” certificate in N.C.C.

4. On 05.04.2016, a corrigendum was issued

whereby the number of posts were increased to 169 and

pay-scale was changed as 5200-20200 grade pay `

2400/- Pursuant to the said advertisement, petitioners

applied for the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer

3

Grade-III. Petitioner in WPSS No.884 of 2018 possessed a

Graduation degree in Forestry and M.Sc. in Agriculture

whereas petitioners in WPSS No.728 of 2017 possessed

B. Tech in Agricultural Engineering from G.B. Pant

University of Agriculture and Technology. Petitioners

were issued admit cards. They appeared in the written

examination. The result of the successful candidates was

declared and the successful candidates were called for

document verification thereafter. Petitioners, being

declared successful, were also called for document

verification. They presented themselves, along with all

relevant documents, before the authority. Thereafter, by

letters issued on different dates, petitioners were

informed that their candidature has been rejected as they

do no possess the minimum qu alification as prescribed

in the advertisement, which is B.Sc. (Agriculture). It was

also stated that selection is made as per the provisions of

Service Rules for the said post and the minimum

educational qualifications prescribed for the said post is

Graduation degree in Agriculture. The contention of the

petitioners is that they possess higher qualification than

that prescribed in the advertisement. As such, third

respondent has got no authority to reject the candidature

of the petitioners.

5. Respondents have filed their counter affidavits

in both the writ petitions. The sum and substance of the

counter affidavits is that as per the provisions of

Uttaranchal (Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture

Service Rules, 1993) Adaptation and Modification Order,

2002, the minimum educational qualification prescribed

for the post of subordinate Agriculture Service Group-3 is

Graduation in Agriculture (B.Sc. Agriculture),

consequently in the advertisement issued by the UKSSSC

4

the minimum educational qua lification for the post of

Assistant Agriculture Officer Grade-3 has been

prescribed as Degree of Graduation in Agriculture from a

recognized Institute or University. The petitioners do not

possess the requisite educational qualification, however,

they claim that they possess higher qualification. Thus,

their candidature was rejected. It is stated that the

higher qualification can only be considered, when the

candidate posses the minimum qualification for the post

as per relevant Service Rules.

6. A rejoinder affidavi t has been filed by the

petitioner Anil Kumar in WPSS No.884 of 2018 denying

the averments of the counter affidavit.

7. Heard Mr. Dinesh Gehtori and Mr. Sanjay

Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Anjali

Bhargava and Mr. P.C. Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. along with Mr.

Sushil Vashishtha, Standing Counsel for the State of

Uttarakhand as well as Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned

counsel for respondent no.3-Commission. Perused the

entire material.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the respondent Commission is not justified in

rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground

that they do not possess the minimum qualification. They

contend that the petitioners possess the higher

qualification than the qualification prescribed, thus, they

are fully entitled to be considered for appointment on the

said post. In WPSS No.728 of 2017, it is contended that

the technical qualification acquired by the petitioners i.e.

B.Tech in Agriculture Engineering is equivalent to the

prescribed qualification.

5

9. In order to buttress their submissions, learned

counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the

following judgments:-

(i) Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission

(2002) Supp. 1 JT 85

“9. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that

when a qualification has been set out under the relevant

rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down

and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High

Court is also justified in stating that the higher

qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the

acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that

post in order to attract that part of the rule to the effect

that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose

the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for

the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person

has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty,

such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose

the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for

the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far.

Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant

engineer, degree in electrical engineering of Kerala

University or other equivalent qualification recognized or

equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post

when a direct recruitment has to be held, the

qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an

indication that such qualification is definitely higher

qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post,

namely the post of sub-engineer. In that view of the

matter the qualification of degree in electrical engineering

presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of

diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be

considered to be sufficient for that post. In the event the

government is of the view that only diploma holders

should have applied to post of sub-engineers but not all

those who possess higher qualifications, either this rule

should have excluded in respect of candidates who

possess higher qualifications or the position should have

been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to

apply for such post. When that position is not clear but

on the other hand rules do not disqualify per se the

holders of higher qualifications in the same faculty, it

becomes clear that the rule could be understood in an

appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the

matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained.

In this case we are not concerned with the question

whether all those who posses such qualifications could

6

have applied or not. When statutory rules have been

published and those rules are applicable, it presupposes

that everyone concerned with such appointments will be

aware of such rules or make himself aware of the rules

before making appropriate applications. The High Court,

therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of

appellants would amount to fraud on the public.”

(ii) Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and

others (2001) 8 SCC 546

“8. In the present, the High Court has merely relied upon

a book published as Equivalence of Foreign Degrees by

the Association of Indian Universities and places its

interpretation that the BA (Hons) degree possessed by the

appellant is not equivalent to Master’s degree of Aligarh

University and, therefore, the appellant lacks essential

qualification for appointment as Lecturer. The contents of

the publication, apart from the book itself, cannot be

ascribed with any official sanctity of binding force or

authority. The glaring facts arising in this case have not

been taken note of by the High Court. The appellant had

already obtained MPhil and PhD degrees from the

respondent University. At the time of his admission to

MPhil leading to PhD course in the Department of

Philosophy, the question of equivalence in qualification

was examined in detail and the Academic Council

approved his admission to MPhil or PhD course. In the

event his qualification of BA (Hons) degree from the

Council of National Academic Awards is not equivalent to

Master’s degree, he could not have been admitted to

MPhil leading to PhD course. But to say that such

acceptance of such equivalence is only for the purpose of

admission to MPhil leading to PhD course and not for

other purposes will lead to anomalous results.

Equivalence of qualification has to be determined before a

person is allowed to undergo a course. When the

appellant as a result of such admission obtained such

high qualifications as MPhil/Phd, it is difficult to imagine

that the equivalence of qualification obtained by him

earlier was not considered by the University. After having

obtained such degrees, to nullify the equivalence declared

by the Academic Council and the Vice-Chancellor will be

to put the clock back causing grave injustice to the

appellant. Had be been denied admission on the ground

that his qualification is not equivalent to Master’s degree,

he might have obtained an equivalent qualification or

pursued his studies elsewhere. That opportunity having

been deprived to him and his admission to such courses

having been ratified based on the recommendations of the

7

Equivalence Committee, it cannot be nullified in the

manner it has been done.”

(iii) Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District

& Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others (2000) 2

SCC 606

“13. Laying of criteria when there are a large number of

candidates is permissible but that criteria must be

reasonable and not arbitrary having regard to the post for

which recruitment is made.

20. If an employee does not perform the duties attached

to the post disciplinary proceedings can certainly be

taken against him. An employer cannot throw up his

hands in despair and devise a method denying

appointments to a person who otherwise meets the

requisite qualifications on the ground that if appointed,

he would not perform his duties. Qualification prescribed

is minimum. Higher qualification cannot become a

disadvantage to the candidate.

21. A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate

his right to be considered for the post on the principle

that he is having higher qualification than prescribed

cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate

as to why those candidates who possess qualifications

equivalent to SCC examination could also not be

considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in

hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule

of universal application.”

(iv) Smt. Reena Naulia vs. State of Uttarakhand &

Others

“3. In view of this Court, the stand of the respondents for

not considering the candidature of the petitioner on the

basis of qualification was totally wrong for the reason that

according to the Rules the essential qualification is either

Intermediate in Agriculture as of the essential subjects or

High School with two years Diploma in Agriculture. The

petitioner is Intermediate, though she does not have the

Diploma in Agriculture, however, she has a Degree in

Agriculture Sciences. Moreover, undisputedly the

petitioner is a Science Graduate in Agriculture and she

has also done her post-graduation and Ph.D. in

Agriculture. Therefore, she was fully qualified for the said

post.”

8

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent no.3 would submit that the employer is the

best judge to decide the question of qualification for the

post so advertised. It is argued that the petitioners do not

possess the requisite educational qualification as per the

advertisement and relevant Rules. Therefore, the

candidature of the petitioners have been rightly rejected

on account of non-possessing the requisite minimum

qualification by the petitioner. In support of his

submissions, learned counsel would place reliance on the

following judgments:-

i) Ranajit Kumar Meher vs. State of Orissa and others,

(2017) 4 SCC 568

“2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both the

sides, we are of the view that there cannot be any

appointment in violation of the Rules. Qualification is to be

seen with respect to the Rules and not the advertisement

inviting applications. The appellant, admittedly, does not

possess the qualification as prescribed under the Rules.”

ii) Prakash Chand Meena an d others vs. State of

Rajasthan and others (2015) 8 SCC 484

“8. Having heard the parties, we have also perused the

written submissions filed on behalf of some of them and

have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge

and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. In our

considered view, the issue noticed at the outset must be

decided on the basis of settled law noticed by the learned

Single Judge that recruitment process must be completed

as per terms and conditions in the advertisement and as

per Rules existing when the recruitment process began.

In the present case, the Division Bench has gone to great

lengths in examining the issue whether BPEd and DPEd

qualifications are equivalent or superior to CPEd

qualification but such exercise cannot help the cause of

the respondents who had the option either to cancel the

recruitment process if there existed good reasons for the

same or to complete it as per terms of advertisement and

as per Rules. They chose to continue with the recruitment

process and hence they cannot be permitted to depart

from the qualification laid down in the advertisement as

well as in the Rules which were suitably amended only

9

later in 2011. In such a situation, factual justifications

cannot change the legal position that the respondents

acted against law and against the terms of advertisement

in treating such applicants successful for the

appointment to the post of PTI Gr. III who held other

qualifications but not the qualification of CPEd. Such

candidates had not even submitted separate OMR

application form for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.III

which was essential as per the terms of advertisement.”

iii) Deepak Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others

2020 (1) ALJ 596 Full Bench

“51. Testing the said arguments as raised by Sri. Khare

although on record no Rules have been placed, however,

in view of the finding recorded by us that Diploma in

Engineering is not the same as Bachelor in Engineering

and also the finding recorded by us that the State is well

equipped to prescribe the requisite required qualification

keeping in view the requirement of posts for which the

advertisements are issued, we hold that whether Diploma

in Engineering is specified as a minimum qualification or

a required qualification, Graduates in Engineering would

not be entitled to be considered and will be out of zone of

consideration unless a candidate possess both the

qualifications to explain it further suppose a candidate

after acquiring Diploma in Engineering also passes

Graduation in Engineering he would be eligible, in view of

the fact that he has Diploma in Engineering which is the

required qualification for applying to the post and cannot

be denied to participate only because he has any

qualification additional to the prescribed qualification.

However, the State Government is free to provide for

equivalence as was done by the Kerala State while

incorporating Rule 10(a) (ii). Since there is nothing on

record in the present case to show that there was any

Rule or Directive of the State Government to provide

equivalence, it is only logical to conclude that degree

holders are ineligible to participate in the selection

process for Junior Engineer in the light of the specific

provisions incorporated under the advertisement in

question.

52. Reverting the Question No. D whether the exclusion of

degree holders from the zone of consideration would meet

the tests as propounded by the Supreme Court in

the State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Deep Chandra

Tewari and another. It is essential that the relevant

observations in the case of Deep Chandra Tewari (supra)

are reproduced which are as under:

10

"We are conscious of the principle that when particular

qualifications are prescribed for a post, the candidature of

a candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be

rejected on that basis. No doubt, normal rule would be

that candidate with higher qualification is deemed to fulfil

the lower qualification prescribed for a post. But that

higher qualification has to be in the same channel.

Further, this rule will be subject to an exception. Where

the prescription of a particular qualification is found to be

relevant for discharging the functions of that post and at

the same time, the Government is able to demonstrate

that for want of the said qualification a candidate may not

be suitable for the post, even if he possesses a "better"

qualification but that "better" qualification has not

relevance with the function attached with the post."

53. Thus, the Supreme Court itself clarified that as

a normal Rule, the candidate with higher qualification is

deemed to fulfill the lower qualification prescribed for a

post but the higher qualification has to be in the same

channel, we have already held that Diploma in

Engineering and Graduate in Engineering cannot be held

to be in the same channel and also that Graduate in

Engineering cannot be deemed to fulfil the qualification

which are prescribed for grant of Diploma. Thus, we have

no hesitation in holding that the exclusion of degree

holders from the zone of consideration in respect of

advertisement in question meets the test as laid down by

the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand

and others vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another.”

vi) Krishna Chandra Joshi and another vs. Rakesh Negi

and others (2017) 1 U.D. 12

23. We will first deal with the appeals arising from Writ

Petition No.1091 of 2013 (S/S). Therein, the writ

petitioner, admittedly, did not possess Diploma in

Allopathic Pharmacy, instead he had Degree in Allopathic

Pharmacy. We have already noticed the prayer. We are at

a loss as to how a writ of mandamus, which presupposes

the plea of a legal right in the writ petition to be

considered, could have been ordered by the learned Single

Judge. When the employer fixed a qualification as an

essential qualification, unless there is a power of

relaxation and the power is exercised, the said

qualification is indispensable for being considered for

public employment. This question is no longer in fact res

integra. We would only advert to the following case law

that the direction given by the learned Single Judge in

this Writ Petition is clearly unsupported. They are:

11

1. State of Punjab and others v. Anita and others reported

in (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 170

2. Prakash Chand Meena and others v. State of Rajasthan

and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484.

v) Navraj vs. State of Uttarakhand and another WPSB

No.110 of 2015, decided on 26.03.2015

“3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned counsel for the Commission. The dispute

narrows down to the posts which are mentioned earlier.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits before

us, however, that under the Rules and the advertisement

the essential qualification is Graduation Degree or

Diploma in Mass Communication. The petitioner

admittedly has graduated in Science. Thereafter he has

done post graduation in Mass Communication.

5. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our

attention to a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, reported

in JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 85 (Jyoti K.K. and others versus

Kerala Public Service Commission and others). That is a

case which arose from the judgment of the High Court of

Kerala, where the Court had to deal with the case of a

rule which provided for power to recognize a higher

qualification as equivalent and, in such circumstances,

the Court took the view that the possession of the higher

qualification would be premised on his being qualified.

There is no such rule available to come to the rescue of

the writ petitioner. He has graduated in Science which

cannot be treated as graduation in the subject which is

required both under the rules and advertisement.”

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on file.

12. Before deciding the rival contentions, it would be

apt to take note of the statutory provisions, as also the

advertisement dated 20.02.2016.

13. The State Government, State of U.P., has framed

the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules,

1993, which are the rules governing the field of the

present case. Said Rules are also application to the State

12

of Uttarakhand. Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate

Agriculture Service Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred

as Rules of 1993) is extracted hereunder:-

8 'kSf{kd vgZrk,a

Lksok esa fofHkUu inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, vH;FkhZ dks ifjf'k’V Þdß vkSj Þ[kß esa inksa ds

lEeq[k n'kkZ;h x;h 'kSf{kd vgZrk,a gksuh vko';d gSa A

ifjf'k’V&d

mÙkj izns”k Ñf’k lsok esa inksa dh lwph eSnkuh laoxZ

lewg

dk

uke

Ø la vuqHkkx dk uke in d k

uke

inksa dh

la[;k

osrueku

¼:i;s½

'kSf{kd

vgZrk,a

HkrhZ dk

L= ksr

fu;qfDr

izkf/kdkjh

oxZ

rhu

1

fod kl lgk;d

Ñf’k

fujh{kd

95 975-25-

1150

fdlh

ekU;rk izkIr

laLFkk ;k

fo'ofo| ky;

ls Ñf’k esa

Lukrd

mikf/k

Relevant extract from advertisement

4& Ñ f’k foHkkx esa lgk;d Ñf’k vf/kdkjh oxZ&

III ds fjDr 96 inksa dk fooj.k fuEu izdkj

gS%&

in d ksM mi dksM foHkkx dk uke fjfDr;ksa dk

fooj.k] vk;q lhek]

osrueku o xzsM

osru

U;wure vgZrk,a o vf/kekuh vgZrk,a

04 4-1 Ñ f’k foHkkx 96 [GEN-24,

GEN(WO)-15,

GEN (EX)-03,

GEN(PH)-02,

GEN (DFF)-01,

GEN(UKA)-02,

SC-16, SC(WO)-

11, SC(EX)-02,

SC(PH)-01,

SC(DEF)-

01,SC(UKA)-04,

OBC-06,

OBC(WO)-03,

OBC(EX)-01,

OBC(UKA)-01)]

“kSf{kd vgZrk,a& fdlh ekU;rk izkIr

laLFkk ;k fo”ofo|ky; ls Ñf’k esa Lukrd

mikf/kA

vf/kekuh vgZrk,a%& vU; ckrksa ds leku

gksus ij ,sls vH;FkhZ dks lh/kh HkrhZ ds

ekeys esa vf/keku fn;k tk,xk] ftlus%&

(i) izknsf”kd lsuk

esa 02 o’kZ dh U;wure

vof/k rd lsok dh gks] ;k

(ii) jk’Vªh; dSMsV dksj d k ÞchÞ

izek.k&i= fd;k gksA

The post of Assistant Agriculture Inspector

Grade-III has been re-designated as Assistant Agriculture

Officer Grade-III with the same classification.

13

14. Admittedly, in the advertisement the

educational qualification prescribed for the post of

Assistant Agriculture Officer Grade-III is graduation

degree in agriculture from a recognized University or

Institution. In the Rules of 1993, the educational

qualification for the post of Assistant Agriculture

Inspector Grade-III (now Assistant Agriculture Officer

Grade-III) is also prescribed as graduation degree in

agriculture from any recognized University or

Institution. Law is well settled that the recruitment

process must be completed as per terms and conditions

of the advertisement and as per existing rules and in the

case of ambiguity in the advertisement and existing

rules, the recruitment process shall be carried out as

per the rules existing when the recruitment process

began. In the present case, there is no ambiguity or

anomaly in the advertisement. In the advertisement as

well as in the Rules of 1993, the educational

qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant

Agriculture Officer Grade-III is a graduation degree in

Agriculture. Furthermore, neither the advertisement nor

the Rules of 1993 is under challenge before this Court.

Thus, this Court has to limit itself to the point as to

whether the petitioners possess the requisite

qualification as per the advertisement or not.

15. In WPSS No.728 of 2017, the petitioner has a

graduation degree in Forestry and a master’s degree in

agriculture whereas in WPSS No.884 of 2014 the

petitioners possess Bachelor’s degree in Agriculture

Engineering. In the first hand, none of the petitioners

fulfill the criteria of educational qualification prescribed

for the said post. It was the contention of Mr. Sanjay

Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner that the

14

petitioner possesses higher qualification which he

obtained on the basis of qualification of B.Sc. Forestry. It

was submitted that at the time of admission in M.Sc.

(Agriculture), B.Sc. (Forestry) qualification possessed by

the petitioner was considered as sufficient. In view of

decision of Tariq Islam (supra), the University is the best

judge to consider the equivalence of qualification and the

respondents are not justified in saying that the petitioner

lacks the essential educational qualification. The ratio of

said judgment is not applicable to the peculiar facts of

the case, inasmuch as, a bare perusal of M.Sc. degree

would suggest that major subject is Vegetable Science

and minor subject is Horticulture. It is settled law that

the employer is best suited to decide the requirements a

candidate must possess according to the needs of the

employer and the nature of work and in the present case

the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner

on the ground of non-fulfilling the requisite educational

qualification. Higher qualification of the petitioner has

not been considered by the respondents.

16. As regards the case of petitioners in WPSS

No.884 of 2018, they possess degree of Bachelor of

Technology in Agriculture Engineering. Neither this Court

has the expertise to compare the equivalence of

educational qualifications, to make comparisons for

eligibility for the posts in the statutory rules, nor this

Court thinks it proper to go into such the controversy, as

all are these matters to be considered by the appropriate

authority. The respondents in the counter affidavit have

specifically stated that for the post of Assistant

Agriculture Officer Grad e-III, the educational

qualification prescribed is B.Sc. Agriculture.

15

17. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun,

AIR 2002 SC 2642, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as

under:-

"12. From the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear

that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a

course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are

matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is

not for Courts to decide whether a particular educational

qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent

to the qualification prescribed by the authority."

18. It is also a settled law that the employer is the

best judge to decide the question of qualification. The

Court cannot decide eligibility and essential

qualifications for employment.

19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Public

Service Commission versus Sandeep Shriram Warade

and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362, has held as under:-

“9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post

are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe

additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of

preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide

the requirements a candidate must possess according to

the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The

court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much

less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable

qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by

an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of

equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial

review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules

are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same.

If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is

contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to

the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to

proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court,

in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the

appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer

16

and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary

to the plain language of the same.”

20. In Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India AIR 1974

SC 1631, it was held as under:

“13. …… It must be noted that the question in regard to

equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical

question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the

relevant academic standard and practical attainments of

such qualifications and where the decision of the

Government is based on the recommendation of an expert

body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and

expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the

Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the

technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining

equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the

Government. It is only where the decision of the

Government is shown to be based on extraneous or

irrelevant considerations or actuated by mala fides or

irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong that the Court

would reach out its lethal arm and strike down the decision

of the Government.”

21. In Krishna Chandra Joshi (supra), Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court has held that when the

employer has fixed a qualification as an essential

qualification, unless there is a power of relaxation and

the power is exercised, the said qualification is

indispensable for being considered for public

employment.

22. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgments

to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this

Court is of the considered view that none of the

petitioners possess the requisite qualification for the post

of Assistant Agriculture Officer Grade-III. Thus, this

Court has no hesitation in holding that the candidature

17

of the petitioners have rightly been rejected by the

respondents on the ground of non-fulfilling the requisite

educational qualifications. Insofar as the judgments

cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are

concerned, the same are not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case and are therefore of no help to

the petitioners.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, writ

petitions lack merit. Same are hereby dismissed. No

order as to costs.

(Lok Pal Singh, J.)

01.10.2020

Rajni