Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Babubhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2018
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6953 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11445 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9940 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9941 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8444 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8760 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6939 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8145 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7073 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12008 of 2017
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12011 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10115 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12267 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6937 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6941 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15597 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23098 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7223 of 2017
With
Page 1 of 19
C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15013 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6953 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14570 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6953 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14636 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6937 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? YES
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of NO
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MONIKABEN GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL & 17....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 13....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GM JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 18
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS
DIVYANGNA JHALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 5 , 7 - 10
Page 2 of 19
C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
MR JEET J BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 11 - 14
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 9
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 23/02/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
These petitions involved similar facts and identical issues. They were heard together to be disposed of by this common judgment. The arguments were raised in Special Civil Application No.6953 of 2017 in which the pleadings were complete and in Special Civil Application No.11445 of 2017.
2. Civil Application No.14570 of 2017 filed in Special Civil Application No.6953 of 2017 as also Civil Application No.14636 of 2017 filed in Special Civil Application No.6937 of 2017 which were for vacating interim relief would not survive in view of deliverance of this judgment. As far as Civil Application No.15013 of 2017 is concerned, the applicant was a selectee and wanted to be joined as party respondent in Special Civil Application No.6953 of 2017. Looking to the status of the applicant vis-a- vis the controversy and the dispute in the petition, it could not be denied that the applicant has a direct interest in the outcome of the petition. Therefore, the applicant being an interested person to be necessary and proper party, is permitted to be joined as party respondent in Special Civil Application No.6953 of 2017 by allowing the Civil Application No.15013 of 2017. The Registry shall permit Page 3 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT impleadment by amendment in the cause-title in the main petition.
3. All the petitioners were the contenders for the posts of Gram Sevak. The petitioners felt aggrieved as their names did not figure in the select list. They prayed to set aside the deletion of their names from the select list and further prayed to direct the respondents to offer them the appointment. 3.1 The respondent - District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, for undertaking the process of recruitment to the posts of Gram Sevak, issued advertisement in November, 2016, pursuant to which the petitioners applied on-line. The petitioners cleared the written test held on 18th December, 2017. Thereafter either at the stage of verification of documents or at the stage when the petitioners were to be called for interview, they were treated to be ineligible, consequently, in the final list published, their names did not figure, or where figured, they were not intimated to be called for the oral interview.
3.2 The advertisement prescribed the educational qualification required for the post inter alia to be Diploma in Agriculture or Bachelor in Rural Studies. It was as per the applicable Rules called 'Gram Sevaks, Class III, in the Superior Panchayat Service Recruitment Rules, 2014' published as per Notification dated 30th December, 2014 of the Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development. Rule 3 provides for eligibility for appointment to the post, is reproduced Page 4 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT hereunder.
"3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule-2, a candidate shall -
(a) ... ... ...
(b) possess-
(i) either two years or three years
Diploma in Agriculture or Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated or under the Central or State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared as Deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;
(ii) the basic knowledge of computer applications as prescribed in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967; and
(iii) adequate knowledge of Gujarati or Hindi or both."
3.3 Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of Rule 3, thus mentions the educational qualifications to be possessed by the candidate. It is either two years' or three years' Diploma in Agriculture or Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained from a University established under Central or State Act or declared as Deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission, 1956.
3.4 The controversy in this group of petitions arise in respect of and with reference to the Degree of Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained by the petitioners as to whether their degree could be said to be an acceptable degree for the purpose of the post in question.
Page 5 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT3.5 The petitioners possessed the degree of Bachelor in Rural Studies in the Home Science subjects, from Mahila Gram Vidyapith, Nardipur, affiliated to the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University, Patan. The degree certificates in some cases mentioned the degree as Bachelor in Rural Studies (Home Science), whereas in some cases it was mentioned as Bachelor in Rural Studies without suffixing the words 'Home Science'. Even where it was not indicated in the degree description, undisputedly, the petitioners studied the subjects of Home Science which was evident from their marksheets.
3.6 The common ground on which each of the petitioners came to be denied eligibility and resultantly further participation in the recruitment process was that their degree of Bachelor in Rural Studies was obtained in the curriculum with subjects of Home Science.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.G.M. Joshi, learned advocate Mr.T.R. Mishra, learned advocate Mr.A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate Ms.Shaili Kapadia and learned advocate Mr.D.K. Vaidya for the petitioners in respective petitions, learned Government Pleader Ms.Manisha Lavkumar assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Divyangna Jhala for the respondent - State and its authorities, whereas learned advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw for the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee and learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat for the University Page 6 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Grants Commission. Also heard learned advocate Mr.Jeet Bhatt for the newly added respondent.
4.1 Learned advocates for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the stand of the respondents in not treating the Degree of Bachelor in Rural Studies held by the petitioners was contrary to the prescription in the Rule. It was submitted that the Rule only contemplated the degree of Bachelor of Rural Studies and no further. It was submitted that the respondents could not have read into the Rule so as not to treat the petitioners eligible on the ground that their degree was in Home Science subjects. It amounted to re-writing the Rule, submitted they. According to petitioners' submission when they were treated to be not eligible in the middle of the recruitment process on the above ground, and were not called for interview, it meant changing the criteria in the midst.
4.2 The submission of the petitioners in furtherance was that their exclusion was discriminatory and that it was irrational classification by dividing a single class of holders of degree in Bachelor of Rural Studies, which violated petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Yet another submission made was that the Rules for the post of Gram Sevak were amended and modified in the year 1967, then in 1992, further in year 1998 and thereafter the prevalent Rules of 2014 were brought into force. In the earlier Rules, the qualification mentioned was Bachelor's in Rural Page 7 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Studies in the subjects of Agriculture, however in the Rules of 2014, the qualification of Bachelor of Rural Studies is mentioned without further addition of words, and that the word "agriculture" mentioned in the 1998 Rules was conspicuously missing. It was submitted that therefore the Rule making authority intended accordingly.
4.3 On the other hand, learned Government Pleader as well as learned advocate for the Selection Committee highlighted the kind and nature of duties to be performed by the Gram Sevaks. They submitted that the Gram Sevaks are expected to possess the knowledge in the field of agriculture. It was submitted that the State has right to go deep into the prescription of qualification to judge the eligibility and suitability of the candidates and for that purpose, also could examine the contents of subjects studied in the degree possessed by the candidates.
4.4 Respondent No.1 - State in its reply contended that recruitment process for the post was taken up in 33 districts. The Gram Sevaks to be appointed were to work in the rural set up. The process was initiated after receiving requisitions and thereafter obtaining approval from the State Government. The written examination was conducted whereafter final merit list was to be prepared upon verification of the documents to determine the eligibility of the candidates. Since all the candidates had obtained the very Bachelor Degree in Home Science, they were not considered eligible.
Page 8 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT4.5 It was stated on behalf of the State Government by filing additional affidavit that an inquiry was made with the North Gujarat University and it was gathered that the curriculum of Bachelor of Rural Studies and curriculum of Degree of Bachelor in Rural Studies in the subjects of Home Science held by the petitioners were quite different. The study in the course of Bachelor in Rural Studies included subjects of Agronomy Paper-1 Soil Science and Soil Management, Introductory Animal Husbandry and Dairy Science, Basic Principles of Horticulture, Principal of Crop Production, Health and Sanitation, Water management in Agriculture, Agriculture Development and Innovative Approach, Animal Health, Dairy Science, Modern Stream of Ext. Education, Institutes of Social Development, Modern Stream of Horticulture, Nursery Management and Forestry, Farm Management & Planning, Plant Breeding, Agricultural Chemistry, etc., whereas the Bachelor in Rural Studies (Home Science) was the Degree obtained with these subjects - Home Science, Clothing and Textile, Diet Therapy, Child Development, Food Microbiology, Home Science Ext. Education, World Religions, Political Science and Dissertation.
4.6 The District Panchayat Service Selection Committee in its reply submitted that at the stage of verification of the documents, when it was found that petitioners had the qualification of Bachelor of Rural Studies in Home Science subjects. Both the respondents contended that since the petitioners had not learnt the subjects relating to agriculture, which was to be Page 9 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT the field of their duties, they could not be said to have the knowledge requisite for working as the Gram Sevaks.
4.7 The duties and functions of the Gram Sevaks are delineated in black and while by the State Government in its Resolution dated 10th November, 2000, which is annexed with affidavit-in-reply. The Gram Sevaks play no less significant role in the rural agricultural economy. The implementation of different agriculture related policies of the State Government is handled through them. They perform supervisory and advisory functions, working as nodal agency between the farmers at the grass-root level and the governmental authorities. The works such as conducting of crop- cutting experiments, scientific research, providing of subsidies etc. are acted upon through the Gram Sevaks. The Gram Sevaks help the farmers to resolve their queries in respect of seed selection, soil sapling, use of pesticides, insecticides, etc. The Gram Sevaks, by using scientific data and the material, help achieve agricultural development by ensuring utilisation of facilities including undertaking soil reclamation, water analysis in the laboratory etc.
5. The moot question thus arising in all these cases is whether the respondents could have eliminated the petitioners from the zone of eligibility on the ground that their degree of Bachelor in Rural Studies was in the subjects of Home Science, even as the relevant Rule prescribed the qualification to be the Page 10 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT degree of Bachelor in Rural Studies without further specification.
5.1 The principles of law concerning the issues relating to employer's domain to prescribe the qualifications and decide on eligibility for a particular post and the role of the courts in that area, are not a virgin field. Surveying the parameters, in Sanjay Kumar Munjal v. Chairman, UPSC [(2006) 8 SCC 42], the issue before the Apex Court was about qualification to be possessed for the post of Superintendent Archaeologist in Archaeological Survey of India, where the requirement was that the candidate should held the diploma in Archaeology with three years' field experience, or five years' field experience in archaelogy and the knowledge of monuments and antiquities. It was claimed that the experience in Epigraphy was liable to be considered as field experience in archaelogy. The Supreme Court accepted the stand of the Public Service Commission as well as that of the Archaeological Survey of India that archaelogy and epigraphy consisted two different disciplines. The Supreme Court therefore viewed that the field experience in epigraphy would not satisfy the qualification requisite for the post. The principle stated in Sanjay Kumar Munjal (supra) was that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, ordinarily do not direct the employer to prescribe qualification for holding a particular post. The Apex Court stated the proposition of law thus, "it is only the authority concerned which can take Page 11 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT ultimate decision therefor".
5.2 In Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767] the advertisement was for filling-up of various posts in different subjects including post of Lecturer for Master of Computer Application. The requirement mentioned was Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject. The appellant - Ganpath Singh who possessed Masters Degree in Mathematics was recommended and came to be appointed. The Supreme Court held that recommendation was that of an unqualified candidate and could not be accepted. It was observed and held, "Since the appellant did not have a Masters degree in Computer Application he was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. It is completely beyond comprehension when a candidate possessing Masters degree in MCA is available, the Board of Appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore, illegal and invalid".
5.3 Where the academic experts opine in particular way, the court would accept such expert standpoint. For this principle, the decision in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284] could be applied with reverse logic in respect of case on hand. For the post of Reader, the Regulations stipulated the requirement of Master's Degree. The appellant was possessing M.A. And Ph.D. in Political Science and came to be appointed on the post of Reader in public administration. The Page 12 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Supreme Court viewed that the academic experts had regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline and since there were large number of persons who had M.A. and Ph.D. In Political Science and were working as teachers in Public Administration Department and vise-a-versa. The Public Administration and Political Science were considered to be interchangeable and interrelated. In the said case the Regulations provided Master's Degree in "relevant subject for Lecturer's post", but the same was not mentioned for the post of Reader. This discrepancy was ironed out by the Supreme Court holding that the concept of "relevant subject" have to be read into the qualifications for the post of Reader also.
5.4 In Chaudhary Kuldeep Pravinkumar v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation being Special Civil Application No.231 of 2013 and allied petitions decided on 22nd December, 2014, the petitioners were disallowed to resume duties on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker or Sanitary Inspector on the ground that they possess their diploma from one Manav Bharti University, Salon, an outside State university in Himachal Pradesh. The Court examined the issue whether the authorities were justified in not accepting the diploma offered by the said Manav Bharti University so as not to recognise the qualification from the said University for the purpose of appointment on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker. The Court observed, "However assuming that the candidates have produced the mark-sheet issued by the respective University like in the present case, Manav Page 13 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Bharti University, which is established under the statute of the respective State, can the employer like the respondent-Corporation refuse the acceptance of such diploma for the purpose of appointment in question. Thus it has a reference to the aspect of training of the candidate and suitability of the candidate for the post in question".
5.4.1 The Court observed that the employer university was within its right to examine suitability in terms of qualification and eligibility and that this can be decided not merely on the basis of the certificate of Diploma course, but with reference to the nature of training the candidate had undergone. The Court asserted that if the candidate is selected based on such diploma without reference to any qualification or training aspect, it would be against the public interest. In that case the posts were meant to be filled by the respondent-Corporation as a civil body for service to the people to provide civil facilities. It was stated by the Court that if the candidates not properly trained or suitable were to be appointed, it would become counter productive.
5.5 It has to be emphasised that relevance of study of subjects undergone could always be a criteria to be injected into the qualification for the post in question. The contents in curriculum forming part of the degree or diploma which is to be treated and accepted as educational qualification for the post in question, are germane considerations. In other words, the employer would be justified in examining the Page 14 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT contents of the course to adjudge the eligibility and the suitability with reference to the post to which the appointment is to be made. The scrutiny of such nature could not be said to be impermissible by the employer.
5.6 Reverting to the case on hand, it was shown that the incumbents to the post of Gram Sevak would be working in the rural areas and their services would be utilised in the agriculture related activities. The job chart as above which mentioned the kind and nature of duties of Gram Sevak reveal that the appointee must have the knowledge in relation to the soil and agriculture and training in that field. The Degree of Rural Studies when undertaken in the subjects concerning Home Science, the learning and training gained would be totally in the different field and study in those subjects would be irrelevant. Therefore, the duties and functions to be discharged on the post of Gram Sevaks, were rightly treated as special context in determining the eligibility.
5.7 Though in the present case, the Rule providing for educational qualification is not worded specific to mention 'the relevant subject', and it only refers to "Bachelor of Rural Studies", however the principle underlined is that the candidate has to possess the qualification as needed to suit the post. Matching the educational qualification with the nature of post concerned would be a cardinal exercise. Also, such an exercise is of academic nature and in expert realm. It is such expert and academic consideration that has guided the respondents to reject the Page 15 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT candidature of the persons holding Bachelor's Degree in Rural Studies with Home Science subjects as against Bachelor's Degree with relevant subjects. It is not possible to pick out any element of unreasonableness or irrationality in this decision.
5.8 Dealing with the contention that there was a departure from what was prescribed in the Rule, on the contrary, Rule could be said to have been applied with a purpose. The kind and nature of duties of the post and the nature of work has feeded the decision of the respondents, which in turn, has cemented the suitability of the candidate for the post. In rejecting those candidates holding the Degree with Home Science, a purposive co-relation between the post and nature of duties attached to it on one hand, and the content-qualification on the other, has been ensured. It is a kind of purposive application of the Rule entirely permissible, and could hardly be treated as departure from the Rule. Ironing out the application of the Rule is not re-writing the Rule.
6. Sifting the candidates and excluding them on the consideration that they studied in the Home Science, though nomenclature of their study was Bachelor's of Rural Studies, was eminently a rational exercise, which led to a reasonable decision. An exercise in the realm of rationality and reasonableness could in no case offend Article 14. Such exercise when in the area of public employment, nor it would infringe Article 16 of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioners could also not be Page 16 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT countenanced that in the earlier Rules, the degree of Bachelor's in Rural Studies was suffixed by word "agriculture" and since that word came to be omitted in the 2014 Rules, any degree of Rural Studies with any subjects-content would be treated as acceptable. The Rule has to be read and interpreted so as not to be incongruent to the requirement and suitability to the post. It could not have been the intention of the Rule making authority to apply the Rule which would have no match with the nature of duties to be discharged by the post holder. A proper and purposive application of Rule may be achieved by process of elimination also as is done in the present case.
6.1 An attempt was made to argue by angling that when the rule did not expressly exclude the Bachelor's of Rural Studies in the subject of Home Science, setting apart the class of candidates possessing such degree would amount to an invalid classification. This submission proceeded on a misconception as to the concept of classification permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution. A different treatment is permissible to apparently seeming similar class of persons, who are required to be divided into two segments or classes with reference to a particular purpose to be achieved by such division. The classification acted upon by the respondents is a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia. When the respondents have examined the degree content of the petitioners to keep them out of zone for appointment to the post of Gram Sevaks, on the consideration that the training which Page 17 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT they had undergone would not not make them suitable to work as Gram Sevaks, the decision had a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
7. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, the petitioners could not claim any right to be appointed to the post of Gram Sevak. The decision of the respondents in not treating as acceptable by the degree held by the petitioners for the post of Gram Sevaks and consequently not calling them for interview on the count that their degree of Bachelor of Rural Studies was obtained in the subjects of Home Science, was eminently rational. No relief could be granted to the petitioners. The petitions are devoid of merits. Resultantly, all the petitions are hereby dismissed. Notice in each of the petitions stands discharged. Interim orders stand vacated. There shall be no costs.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) FURTHER ORDER At this stage, learned advocates for the petitioners requested that the interim order of keeping one post vacant was granted and remained operative during the pendency of the petition which may be extended for reasonable period in order to enable the petitioners to approach higher forum.
Since the relief was granted and operated till today, it would not be unreasonable to continue the same till 12th March, 2018. Ordered accordingly.
(N.V. ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 18 of 19 C/SCA/6953/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Page 19 of 19