Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Arvind Kumar S/O Jagsharan R/O Village vs Union Territory on 14 March, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on 02.03.2017
Date of decision- 14.03.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
(i) O.A No. 060/01113/2015
1. Arvind Kumar S/o Jagsharan R/o Village, P.O Jani Khrud, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Ikvir Kaur D/o Swaran Singh R/o House No. 541, St. No. 10, Ghuman Nagar, Sirhind Road Patiala.
3. Sonam Gupta D/o Vinod Kumar Gupta R/o House No. 452, Piple Wala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
4. Parbhjot Kaur D/o Manjit Singh R/o House No. 389, G.T.B. Colony, Karnal Road, Kaithal (Haryana).
5. Gurcharan Singh S/o Jeet Singh R/o Dashmesh Colony, 22 P.S. Rai Singh Nagar, District Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan.
6. Amrit Kaur D/o Gurdyal Singh R/o House No. 901-A9, Gurbax Colony, Patiala
7. Ashay Mudgal S/o Suraj Prasad Sharma, R/o House No. 9/L/579, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Avtar Singh S/o Bachna Ram R/o Village Haibat Pur, P.O Mubarik Pur, The. Dera Bassi Distt. Mohali Punjab.
9. Ruchin Sharma S/o Mukesh Kumar Sharma, R/o House No. 62, Bhattwars Chandni Wala Mandir, Budhana Town, Muzuffarnagar, U.P.
10. Pooja Rani S/o Beerpal Singh R/o New Grain Market, Near Police Post, Chandana Road, Rajni Colony, Kaithal.
11. Sharda Rani, D/o Veerpal Singh R/o New Grain Market, Near Poice Post, Chandana Road, Rajni Colony, Kaithal.
12. Hari Ram Verma, S/o Panchu Ram Verma R/o Village Ghati, Post Dhungra Kalan, Tehsil Malpura District Tonk, Malpura, Rajasthan.
APPLICANTS
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. P.S. Saini, Advocate proxy for Mr. P.K. Saini.
VERSUS
1. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration through Advisor to Administrator.
2. Education Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools), Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Arvind Moudgil.
(ii) O.A No. 060/01174/2015
Manju Bala D/o Sh. Bashinder Singh (Group B), resident of House No. 1471, Sector 49-B, Pushpak Society, Chandigarh.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. V. Ramaswaroop.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Ministry of Human Resources, Shashtri Bhawan through its Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Chandigarh Administration through its Education Secretary, Department of Educaiton, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools) Union Territory, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Panjab University, Chandigarh through its Registrar.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Arvind Moudgil, counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3
Ms. Nidhi Garg, counsel for respondent no. 4.
(iii) O.A No. 060/01175/2015
Indu Rani D/o Sh. Ram Dhan C/o Arya Gas Agency, Malik Chowk, Hisar (Haryana).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. V. Ramaswaroop.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Ministry of Human Resources, Shashtri Bhawan through its Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Chandigarh Administration through its Education Secretary, Department of Educaiton, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools) Union Territory, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Registrar.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Arvind Moudgil, counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3
Mr. Gagandeep, proxy counsel for respondent no. 4.
(iv) O.A No. 060/01173/2015
Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Chand, resident of House No. 3341, Police Society, Sector 51-D, Chandigarh.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. V. Ramaswaroop.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Ministry of Human Resources, Shashtri Bhawan through its Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Chandigarh Administration through its Education Secretary, Department of Educaiton, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools) Union Territory, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Panjab University, Chandigarh through its Registrar.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Arvind Moudgil, counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3
Ms. Nidhi Garg, counsel for respondent no. 4.
(v) O.A No. 060/00009/2016
Sharda Gill D/o Sh. Ram Lal, resident of House No. 13, Subhas Nagar, Mani Majra, U.T, Chandigarh. (Group C).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. V. Ramaswaroop.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Ministry of Human Resources, Shashtri Bhawan through its Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Chandigarh Administration through its Education Secretary, Department of Educaiton, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools) Union Territory, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Panjab University, Chandigarh through its Registrar.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Arvind Moudgil, counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3
Mr. Sanyam Malhotra, counsel for respondent no. 4.
(vi) O.A No. 060/01181/2015
Ravneet Kaur D/o S. Nirmal Singh, resident of House No. 903, Street No. 7, Krishna Nagar, Amloh Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana (Pb).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. V. Ramaswaroop.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Ministry of Human Resources, Shashtri Bhawan through its Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Chandigarh Administration through its Education Secretary, Department of Educaiton, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools) Union Territory, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Panjab University, Chandigarh through its Registrar.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Aseem Rai, counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3
Ms. Nidhi Garg, counsel for respondent no. 4.
(vii) O.A No. 060/01182/2015
Sharan D/o Sh. Darshan Kumar, resident of House No. 1243-A, Audit Pool Colony, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. V. Ramaswaroop.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Ministry of Human Resources, Shashtri Bhawan through its Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Chandigarh Administration through its Education Secretary, Department of Educaiton, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools) Union Territory, Chandigarh, Ist Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Panjab University, Chandigarh through its Registrar.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Rakesh Verma, counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3
Ms. Nidhi Garg, counsel for respondent no. 4.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. This order shall dispose of all the above captioned O.As as the law point and issue involved in these cases is common in nature. Merely facts are here and there will not change the law. For convenience, facts are taken from O.A No. 060/01113/2015 titled Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors.
2. The applicants seek quashing of order dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure A-8) and ineligibility list as displayed on the website on 24.11.2015 (Annexure A-9) and also impugned the revised merit list dated 30.11.2015 for selection to the post of TGT (Fine Arts) with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to consider their candidature for appointment to the post of TGT (Fine Arts) by treating them eligible as per their qualification of BA with Fine Arts and MA (Fine Arts) and higher qualification.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration invited online application to fill up 548 posts of Masters/Mistresses (TGT). All these applicants in this petition as well as in connected petitions, have applied for the post of TGT (Fine Arts). All of them have done Bachelor of Art with Fine Arts as one of the subject and have also done MA in Fine Arts. Apart from above qualifications, applicants no. 3, 5, 6, 8 & 11 have also done B.Ed in Fine Arts and applicant no. 2, 4, & 9 done Ph.D (Fine Arts) and applicants no. 9 & 10 have also qualified UGC-NET in Fine Arts/Visual Art. It is the case of the applicants that being highly qualified applied for the post of TGT (Fine Arts) online, they were issued roll numbers and subjected to written examination held in the month of February, 2015. On the basis of marks secured by the applicants, the respondents issued provisional list on 28.05.2015 of the candidates who were called for verification of documents. After documents verification, discrepancy list was published on 17.06.2015 with remarks against the applicants names. Some of the candidates who were having Bachelor of Fine Arts (in short B.F.A) degree raised the objection before the respondent department for considering the persons like applicants by treating their qualifications of B.A (Arts) and M.A (Fine Arts) equivalent to BFA Degree. Based upon that complaint or representation, Chandigarh Administration constituted a Committee for this purpose to resolve the issue as to whether B.A (Arts) and MA (Fine Arts) could be treated equivalent to BFA Degree or not. It is in furtherance to Committee decision, an order dated 07.09.2015 was passed where the respondents decided to refer the matter to All India Council for Technical Education to seek their clarification that whether B.A (Arts) and MA (Fine Arts) could be treated equivalent to BFA Degree or not. It is also submitted that those candidates who were holding BFA Degree were offered appointment and with regard to other candidates like applicants, they decided to keep their appointment order pending. The applicants also appeared before the Committee and on 05.11.2015. The respondent-Education Department issued discrepancy list for TGT (Fine Arts) on the website and the candidates whose names were mentioned in the discrepancy list were advised to appear before the committee to clarify the objections raised by them. The applicants appeared before the Documents Checking Committee on 09.11.2015 to prove their eligibility. Thereafter, respondent department issued another list dated 24.11.2015 of ineligible candidates for the post in question and finally issued the revised merit list on 30.11.2015 wherein the names of the applicants could not find mentioned and they were declared ineligible for the post of TGT (Fine Arts) by making common objection that they are not having essential qualification for the post in question. Hence, the present O.A.
4. The applicants have also taken various grounds for invalidation of decision taken by the respondents for declaring them ineligible. Firstly, they have submitted that once their degree, B.A (Arts) with Fine Arts as one of the subject and MA (FA), had already been equated with degree of BFA by the Panjab University (P.U) in their Syndicate meeting held on 17.07.1982, therefore, the respondents cannot be allowed to take contrary stand and declare them ineligible for the post in question. Secondly, the ground taken by the applicants is that they are having higher qualification then the prescribed qualification even then the respondnets cannot declare them ineligible. Thirdly, they submitted that Central Board of Secondary Education ( in short CBSE) considered those candidates who are having BA (Arts) with fine Arts as one of the subject eligible for the post TGT (FA) then the Chandigarh Administration cannot be allowed to declare them ineligible for the post in question. Another ground of discrimination amongst similarly situated persons has also been taken to invalidate the impugned orders.
5. The respondents resisted the claim of the applicants by filing a detailed written statement wherein they did not dispute the factual accuracy. However, they have submitted that since the applicants did not posses the requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement as based upon rules, therefore, they have rightly been declared as ineligible. Merely participating in selection process do not give them right to seek appointment contrary to rule formulation. It is also submitted that they have already sought clarification from AICTE who have clarified vide its letter dated 16.10.2015 that Council does not deal with qualification of degree awarded by University/Institutions. It is, thereafter, they have decided to convene a meeting of all experts related to Institutions /Universities and thereafter on the basis of recommendations of the Committee dated 23.10.2015, they passed the order dated 04.11.2015 declaring the candidates who have passed graduation with Fine Arts as one of the subject and MA (Fine Arts), ineligible for the post in question i.e. TGT (Fine Arts). They have also followed principle of natural justice by calling those candidates who were not having requisite qualifications and thereafter only, relevant orders were passed.
6. The applicants have also filed a rejoinder contradicting the averment made in the written statement and apart from that they also annexed the judgment passed by the Full Bench of Honble jurisdictional High Court in case of Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP No. 451/2008) to support their case.
7. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at length.
8. Mr. P.S. Saini, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the impugned decision declaring the applicants as ineligible on the ground that they do not posses essential qualification for the post in question, is totally illegal, arbitrary and thus, their action be declared invalid. To elaborate his arguments, he submitted that once the applicants are having BA (Arts) with Fine Art as one of the subject and having MA (Fine Arts/Drawing & Painting) etc. which has already been declared equivalent to the qualifications of BFA by the University who has offered degree, then the respondents cannot be allowed to take contrary stand and declare them ineligible. He has further argued that even the some of the candidates are in possession of higher qualification than that has been prescribed in the advertisement, therefore, the applicants have right of consideration for the post in question and the authority cannot declare them ineligible.
9. Other counsels in connected O.As representing the applicants, have also adopted the arguments as advanced by Mr. P.S. Saini, learned counsel for the applicants in above referred case.
10. Per contra, Mr. Arvind Moudgil, learned counsel for the Chandigarh Administration opposed the prayer made by the applicants on the ground that once an advertisement prescribed specific qualification then the candidates had to apply as per the requisite qualification or equivalent but since the applicants did not posses even the equivalent qualification, therefore, their candidature had been rejected. He also argued that BFA degree has specific qualification in relevant field and candidates who posses BA (Arts) with Fine Arts as once of the subject cannot be said to have same curriculum which the candidates of BFA is having while five years of degree. He, therefore, prayed that O.A be dismissed being devoid of merit. Mr. Moudgil, learned counsel for the official respondents also argued that this Court has no jurisdiction to make any qualification equivalent to particular qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. Reliance in regard has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Honble High Court in case of Rakesh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (CWP No. 14939/2011) decided on 09.10.2013 and in case of Seema & Another Vs. State of Punjab and another (CWP No. 18353/2015) decided on 04.09.2015. While meeting with other argument raised by the applicants regarding having higher qualification, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench of Honble High Court in case of Som Dutt Vs. State of Haryana, 1983(3) SLR 141 and judgment passed by Delhi High Court in case of Farzana Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. ( WP (C) No. 8377/2007 decided on 11.01.2008).
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings as available on record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
12. The core question that arose for our consideration is as to whether the applicants fulfill the eligibility condition relating to educational qualification for the post of TGT (FA) or not? Secondly, whether the applicants who are in possession of degree of BA (Arts) with Fine Art as one of the subject/MA (Fine Arts) can be considered as equivalent qualification to BFA or not?
13. The aforementioned factual matrix makes it clear that the post of TGT (Fine Arts) is governed by the rules which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India called as Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1991. In response to the advertisement issued by the respondents, the applicants applied mentioning about the essential qualification which was to be read in consonance with the rule formulation prescribing the qualification. The qualification as mentioned in the advertisement reads as under:-
6. Fine Arts Bachelor of Fine Arts(BFA) degree or its equivalent from a recognized university with at least 50% marks Though while inviting the applications, the respondents called those aspirants/candidates who were having either the qualification of BFA or its equivalent but all the applicants admittedly are in possession of degree of BA (Arts) with Fine Arts as one of the subject and some of the applicants are having MA (Fine Arts)/Ph.d (Fine Arts) and accordingly, they applied on the basis of equivalency given by, none other than, the Panjab University which offered degree of BFA i.e. in their syndicate meeting held on 17.07.1982 which, inter-alia, reads as under:-
xxxxxxxx After some discussion the committee resolved to recommend as under:-
(i) That BFA degree of the Panjab University be considered as equivalent to the Masters degree of this University in the subject Art/Fine Arts
(ii) Xxxxxx
14. Accordingly, the respondents allowed them to participate in selection process and ultimately on being objection raised by some of the candidates having BFA degree, a Committee of nine members was constituted whose meeting was held on 23.10.2015 where they have decided that degree possessed by the applicants cannot said to be equivalent to the degree of BFA. For better appreciation, minutes of meeting held on 23.10.2015 reads as under:-
Minutes of the meeting held on 23.10.2015 to discuss the details regarding eligibility of candidates for the post of TGT (Fine Arts).
The following members were present:-
1. Mrs. Saroj Mittal, Dy. Director.
2. Dr. Jagtej Kaur, Chairperson Dept. of Art History & Visual Arts, PU Chandigarh.
3. Dr. Guneeta Chadha, Head of the Dept-Fine Arts, Govt. College for Girls, CHD.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Assistant Professor, College of Fine Arts, Chandigarh.
5. Mr. Anand Shendi, Assistant professor, Govt. College of Arts, Chandigarh.
6. Ms. Harleen Kaushal, Govt. Model High School, Sector 45 C, Chandigarh.
7. Ms. Suman Sharma, Dy. Director, Adult Education.
8. Mr. Sunil Bedi, Subject Expert (Comm.)
9. Mr. Umesh Sethi, Supdt.
It was informed to the members that Education Department, Chandigarh Administration invited online applications to fill up 548 posts of Masters/Mistresses (TGT) on regular basis (including 82 posts of TGT-Fine Arts). Last date to deposit the fees was 05.12.2014. Qualification prescribed for the post of TGT Fine Arts in the advertisement is as under:-
Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) degree or its equivalent from a recognized university with at least 50% marks. It was also mentioned in the advertisement at point no. 9.
that before applying for the post of TGT, candidate must enure that he/she fulfils all the eligibility conditions mentioned in the advertisement It was also mentioned in the advertisement that selection will be made purely on the basis of merit in written test subject to fulfilment of eligibility conditions and simply appearing in the written test does not give any right to the candidate for appointment . As such, candidates are advised to ensure that they fulfil eligibility conditions for the post applied.
2. Written examination for the posts of TGT was held from 14.02.2015 to 28.02.2015 and the result on the basis of revised final answer key was declared on 25.05.2015. After checking of documents on 10.06.2015 and 11.06.2015 discrepancy list was also uploaded on 17.06.2015. Candidates who have not passed BFA were given an opportunity to submit the equivalent certificate as mentioned in the advertisement.
3. Some of the candidates who have passed MA (Fine Arts) and the other related qualifications in the area of Fine Arts submitted the document of Punjab University dated 31.07.1982 which was taken under RTI and as per the said document, candidates who have passed BFA are to be considered at par with MA (Fine Arts). It is also mentioned in the said letter that the duration of Dipolma/Degree of Fine Arts is five years. Later on some other applicants submitted letter no. 7782, dated 31.07.2015 of Panjab University Chandigarh issued to one of the candidate vide which it has been clarified as under:-
It is to inform you that Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) and MA (Fine Arts) are Bachelors and Masters degrees in the Faculty of Design & Fine Arts. Hence, these are not treated to be equivalent to each other One of the candidate submitted GNDU, Amritsar letter dated 15.07.2015 vide which it has been clarified as under:-
As per above reference, you are informed that in anticipation approval of Academic council, Equivalence committee of Guru Nanak, Dev University in its meeting, held on 09.07.2015 has resolved that the B?A (with art) and MA (Fine Arts) degree of this university has been considered as equivalent to Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) degree of this university.
4. On the basis of discussion in the meeting held on 28.08.2015 ad representations submitted by the candidates, order dated 07.09.2015 was issued and AICTE was requested to clarify regarding equivalence of BFA degree with others related qualifications such as BA (Fie Arts) followed by MA (Fine Arts)/MA (Drawing and Painting), AICTE vide letter dated 16.10.2015 has informed that as per present policy, AICTE does not deal with equivalence of qualifications/degrees awarded by university/institutions etc.
5. Committee discussed the issue regarding eligibility of candidates for the post of TGT Fine Arts who have passed BFA but have claimed eligibility on the basis of other related qualifications such as BA (Fine Arts) followed by MA (Fine Arts)/MA (Drawing and Painting) as under:
i. Qualification for the post of TGT (Fine Arts) has been mentioned in the advertisement on the basis of Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) Recruitment Rules 1991 as amended from time to time. These Recruitment Rules have been notified in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to article 309 of Constitution of India in pursuance of Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs Notifications No. 3267 dated 01.11.1966.
ii. Bachelor of fine Arts Degree is four years course in which all the papers are related to Fine Arts and examination for this degree is conducted by the concerned University. Whereas, candidates who have passed Graduation Degree with Fine Arts as one of the subject studied one paper of Fine Arts during entire span of graduation in addition to other University subjects such as languages, social sciences etc. iii. Course contents of BFA and Graduation Degree with Fine Arts as one of the subject are not comparable.
iv. Admission to BFA Course is through entrance test whereas admission to first year of Bachelor Degree with Fine Arts as one of the subject is on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2 exams.
v. MA (Fine Arts) is Master Degree which cannot be equated with Bachelor Degree as clarified by Panjab University vide letter dated 31.07.2015. This degree cannot be considered higher degree in the same line of qualification/education as Master of Fine Arts i.e. MFA degree is offered by the Universities to the students who have passed BFA.
vi. On the basis of clarification given by Panjab University vide letter dated 31.07.1982 that the candidates who have passed BFA are to be considered at par with MA (Fine Arts), it cannot be concluded that MA (Fine Arts) Degree is to be considered equivalent to BFA Degree. It is also mentioned in the said letter date duration of Diploma/Degree of Fine Arts is Five years.
On the basis of above discussion, the committee is of the opinion that candidates who have passed Graduation Degree with Fine Arts as on the subject followed by MA (Fine Arts)/Drawing and Painting cannot be considered eligible for the post of TGT (Fine Arts) as it will a deviation from the statutory Recruitment Rules notified by competent authority in exercise of the powers under the provision of Article 309. On the basis of above, the applicants have been declared as ineligible. In some of the cases, the applicants have also impleaded Panjab University as respondent. In the case of Manju Bala wherein P.U has filed the written statement annexing the two documents i.e. decision dated 30.09.2001 and information by the Deputy Registrar (General) on behalf of P.U dated 31.07.2015 informing that Bachelor of Fine Arts (B.F.A) and MA (Fine Arts ) are Bachelors and Master Degrees in the Faculty of Design and Fine Arts cannot be treated as equivalent to each other. It has also been averred by the P.U that these qualifications cannot be declare equivalent for a, b, c reasons. It would be better to reproduce the contents of written statement filed by Panjab University i.e. respondent no. 4 and same reads as under:
1. That the only query for the answering respondent is whether B.A with one of subject as Arts and MA Fine Arts is equivalent to B.FA. In reply to this, it is respectfully submitted that at the time of equating B.F.A degree with MA in the subject of Fine Arts in the year 1982, the duration of the former course (B.F.A) was 5 years after Pre-University/High Secondary (11th Class). A candidate had to spend the same number of years to obtain the either degree.
However with the introduction of 10+2+3 system of education, a candidate now spends 17 years to qualify for the award of MA degree i.e. 10+2+ 3 years. On the other hand, the duration of B.F.A degree course was reduced to 4 years with the minimum qualification being 10+2. Thus the total duration of B.F.A course remained the same as was earlier i.e. 16 years. Hence, the senate at its meeting held on 20.06.2001 (para XLVIII) decided as under:-
That the BFA degree be not equated with Masters degree in the subject of Art/Fine Arts. The students with BFA degree were thus not eligible to teach in the colleges The above decision was in the case of BFA examination of this University only. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has passed B.A with one subject to Fine Arts and MA (Fine Arts) examination from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. These examinations do not stand recognized as equivalent to B.F.A examination of this University.
2. That it is also submitted there that Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree is four years course in which all the papers are related to Fine Arts. Examination for this degree is conducted by the concerned university. Whereas, candidates who have passed graduation degree with Fine Arts as one of the subject studied one paper of Fine Arts during the entire span of Graduation in addition to other subjects.
Admission to B.F.A course is through entrance test whereas admission to first year of Bachelor degree with Fine Arts as one of the subject is on the basis of Marks obtained in 10+2 exams.
3. MA (Fine Arts) is Masters degree which cannot be equated with Bachelor Degree as clarified by Panjab University vide letter dated 31.07.2015. Copy of which annexed as annexure R-2. This degree cannot be considered higher degree in the same line of qualification as Masters of Fine Arts i.e. MFA degree is offered by the university to the students who have passed BFA.
15. The above narrated facts leave no doubt in our mind that qualification possessed by the applicants cannot said to be equivalent to essential qualification for the post in question as prescribed in the advertisement and there is a conscious decision by the respondents based upon the circulars and advise rendered by AICET and other experts which has already been reproduced above. Therefore, this Court cannot held contrary view to the rule formulation because we are not the experts to declare a particular qualification equivalent to whatsoever is prescribed for the post in question. Learned counsel for the applicants forgets that equivalency of qualification is not within the domain of this Court as these matters can be assessed by experts in the field of Education which has been done by respondents in the present case. Once University itself came with a plea that their qualification cannot said to be equivalent with BFA, therefore, they cannot get any benefit from the decision dated 17.07.1982 of P.U. Moreover, P.U has already clarified vide its subsequent letter dated 31.07.2015, which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph, even decision dated 30.09.2001 also makes it clear that Degree of five years of BFA cannot be equated or treated at par with Degree of Arts (FA), therefore, plea of the applicants cannot be accepted. With regard to the second contention of the applicants are concerned, it is to be noticed herein that once they are not having the essential qualification in the relevant field i.e. not having BFA Degree, then having MA (Fine Arts) Degree after BA (Fine Arts) will not made them eligible because once they are not having the basic qualification in the relevant stream and having Master Degree in that stream will not make them eligible for the post in question. Even otherwise the issue of having higher qualification then the prescribed qualification has already been answered in the case of Som Dutt (supra). Relevant para of the same reads as under:-
17. The question as to whether acquisition of an unprescribed higher academic qualification could be treated as fulfillment of the requisites of the prescribed lower qualification by the statutory rules also came up for consideration before the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court inthe case of Som Dutt v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 1983 (3) SLR (P&H) 141. In an elaborate discussion on this issue, while holding that possessing higher qualification may not necessarily be better or more advantageous for the peculiar needs of a post for which the employer State has prescribed lower qualifications, the following legal position has been highlighted while referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court and of its own Court :-
(1) There appears to be wide variety of reasons for holding that the employer-State, should in law, be entitled to prescribe the qualifications which it may think necessary as tailored to the peculiar needs of the particular post or service. Generally, it seems somewhat elementary that the employer alone would know what are the specialities and conditions of service or post for which the incumbent is required. Therefore, it would follow that its discretion in seeking the right man for the right job should be left relatively unfettered. Consequently, no doctrinaire rule can be laid down that a technically higher educational qualification is necessarily better or more advantageous for the peculiar needs of a post for which the employer-State has prescribed lower qualifications.
2) On the larger perspective it was submitted, and in our view rightly that Superlatively higher qualified individuals may not have requisite job satisfaction or motivation in holding a post disquietingly below their academic rank though circumstances for the time being may compel them to accept such a job. The respondent- State, apart from qualifications may have the larger interest of the service in mind in having persons to man posts who value them and would have enough job satisfaction to hold on to them as well. It seems unnecessary to dilate on the various administrative exigencies and other practical considerations which necessarily would come in for appraisal by the employer-State when prescribing minimal qualifications for a particular post or service generally.
(3) Once qualifications have been laid down by binding statutory provisions, then the concept of strict compliance therewith would entitle the State to insist that these be meticulously satisfied and extraneous Considerations like qualifications other than those prescribed being either the exact equivalents, or technically higher than those, would be irrelevant to the issue and indeed may well be contrary to the statutory prescription.
(4) An enquiry by the court for determining as to whether a particular qualification is an exact equivalent or is higher or superior to the prescribed one, would open a Pandora's Box on which the lid cannot easily be replaced.
(5) Even though an educational qualification may be higher it may not be necessarily suited to or particularly tailored to the needs of the post. As in the present case where teachers are being recruited for teaching primary classes or even at the levels lower thereto, its insistence on a literal satisfaction of the prescribed qualifications of junior Basic Training or Diploma in Education Training Course, seems to be obviously well-merited. In view of the above discussion, the posers made above are decided against the applicants as we find no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents and accordingly, all the O.As are dismissed being devoid of merit.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 14.03.2017
`jk
5