Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Manoj Kumar vs Pg Institute Of Medical Education And ... on 26 September, 2018
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.NO.060/00218/2017 Orders pronounced on: 26.09.2018
(Orders reserved on: 24.08.2018)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HON'BLE MS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A)
Manoj Kumar,
age 33 years,
son of Sh. Shakhi Chand,
R/o House No. D34,
HAFED Complex,
Sector-4,
Panchkula
(Group-B).
Applicant
(By: MR. VIKAS CHATRATH, ADVOCATE)
Versus
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research,
Sector 12,
Chandigarh
through
its
Director
(By : MR. D.R. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
Respondent
(OA.No. 060/00218/2017-
Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER)
2
ORDER
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) The present Original Application (OA) is directed against the order dated 20.1.2017 (Annexure A-1), whereby the applicant has been declared ineligible for the pot of Store Keeper. The applicant also seeks issuance of direction to the respondents to treat him eligible, in terms of the eligibility criteria, laid down in the rules as he is having equivalent qualification.
2. The bare minimum facts, which are necessary for adjudication of this case, are that the respondent issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts including 9 posts of Store Keeper, Group C. Out of these 9 posts, 5 were in open category, 1 for SC, 1 for ST and 2 for OBC category. The applicant claiming himself to be eligible, submitted his applicant under relevant category and he was allowed to participate in the selection process, result of which was declared. The applicant was successful. However, by the impugned order dated 20.1.2017, the respondents have declared him ineligible on account of not having the requisite qualification, as provided under the rules. Immediately thereafter the applicant submitted a representation to re-consider his claim, as the applicant is having equivalent qualification. Pending representation, the respondents declared final result on 13.2.2017 (Annexure A-12A). Therefore, the applicant is before this Court where he challenges the order dated 20.1.2017, whereby he has been declared ineligible, on the ground of not possessing the requisite qualifications.
3. The applicant has taken two grounds for invalidation of the impugned order. Firstly, that the impugned order has been passed (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 3 in violation of the principles of natural justice as he was not put to notice before declaring him ineligible and not having the requisite qualifications. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Secondly, that the respondents ought to have referred the matter of equivalence of qualification provided in advertisement and that possessed by the applicant to an expert committee which has not been done, causing prejudice to the applicant. It is submitted that in fact the qualification possessed by the applicant are higher than the prescribed qualification, so the impugned order be quashed and set aside on this score also.
4. The respondent has filed a written statement wherein it is mentioned that since the applicant does not possess the requisite qualification or equivalent thereof, as provided in the advertisement and the rules, as such he has rightly been declared ineligible. Secondly, they have submitted that applicant has also not impugned the final merit list, thus, no relief can be granted to him.
5. That the applicant has also filed a rejoinder controverting the averments made by respondent in the written statement.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the impugned order is liable to be declared as illegal and be set aside on the grounds as pleaded in the Original Application. In support of the pleas, he submits that the Division Bench of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, in LPA No. 1110 of 2012 - ANJU KUMARI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, decided on 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-13), had referred the matter to the Expert Committee to examine the (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 4 matter in this respect and thereafter to consider claim of the individual therein. He submits that when applicant is eligible in terms of the rules and if respondents have any doubt, about his qualification, then the matter should be referred to the Expert Committee to consider the issue and give its opinion which has not been done, as such impugned order be set aside. He also cited other decisions on the same issue like that of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a Bunch of Petitions leading one being CWP No. 387 of 2014 (O&M) etc. titled GURDEEP SINGH & OTHERS VS. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS, decided on 15.11.2017, C.W.P. No. 14426 of 2016 titled SUDESH KUMARI VS. HSSPP & ANOTHER, decided on 15.11.2017; KULDEEP VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, 2017 (3)SCT 337, MANJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS, 2011(1) SLR 583, SARABJEET KAUR DHALIWAL VS. PAU, LUDHIANA, 2003 (4)SCT 132. These are also on the same lines including that persons having higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from selection and when post is vacant, person who is eligible cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, he submitted that impugned order be set aside on the twin grounds of being violative of principles of natural justice and also without referring and inviting opinion of expert committee on the issue and his claim has wrongly been rejected. The impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to offer him appointment as the post is still lying vacant.
8. Per contra, Mr. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the submissions made in the written statement.
(OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 5
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and perused the material on the file.
10. The moot question that arises for consideration before us as to whether the applicant possesses the qualification / equivalent qualification, provided in the advertisement or not and as to whether the respondent is under obligation to constitute a Committee for examination of equivalency of qualification and after its receipt, take a decision to declare a candidate in exam ineligible or eligible?
11. It is not matter of dispute that the post of Store Keeper is governed under the statutory recruitment rules, which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which lays down a specific qualification for the post in question, as under :-
"Essential:-
i) Bachelor degree in Economics / commerce / Statistics.
ii) Postgraduate Degree/ Diploma in Material Management from a recognized University / Institute or Equivalent."
12. Admittedly, the applicant does not have the qualification, as noticed above, as only has Bachelor of Commerce and MBA (Retail Management) but he does not have Postgraduate Degree/ Diploma in Material Management from a recognized University / Institute or Equivalent. He claims that the subjects studied by him in MBA (Retail Management) are the same as are taught in Postgraduate Degree / Diploma in Material Management. He had applied for the post in question but at that the equalency of his qualification was not examined and when it was noticed that he does not possess the requisite qualification, he was declared ineligible and after declaration of the result, the respondents found that he was not having the requisite qualification, as (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 6 discussed above. It is not in dispute that knowing full well that applicant does not possess the qualification, yet he submitted his application for the post in question. He kept mum and did not raise the issue at that time nor produce any certificate from any college or authority declaring his qualification as equivalent to one provide in the advertisement. Now, he has challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the respondents are under obligation to constitute an expert committee, who shall examine the equivalency of qualification and then submit its report, which should be binding upon parties. As noticed above, the respondents framed statutory recruitment rules under article 309 of the Constitution of India, which lays down a specific qualification, which applicant does not possess and as such is not eligible and has been declared as such by the respondents vide impugned order. Thus, he cannot seek appointment to the post as a matter of right, just because he was allowed to participate in the selection process, on provisional basis. The concept of violation of principles of natural justice would not arise in such like cases.
13. The other argument of the applicant, that the matter in the first place should have been referred to Expert Committee, is too farfetched and cannot be accepted at all as if such pleas are accepted, then the respondents would not be able to complete any selection process and every person, having any qualification, would submit his application and then respondents would be considering equivalency of qualification of each ineligible candidate by constituting committees. This is not the spirit of the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in the (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 7 case of Anju Kumari (supra). Once applicant, on the face of it, does not possess the requisite qualification, he has rightly been declared ineligible by the authorities, which cannot be tinkered by a court of law. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant do not advance his case, at all, from any angle.
14. In the case reported as (2012) 3 SCC 129 entitled CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS, it was held that "8. The word "equivalent" must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression "equivalent" one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that, after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence."
Thus, equivalent means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact.
15. In the case of UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE V. C.D. GOVINDA RAO AND ANOTHER A.I.R. 1965 SC 491, in Constitution Bench judgment Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that in the academic matters regarding equivalence of university degree the Courts will not express a definite opinion. It was held as under:-
"12. Where one of the qualifications for the appointment to the post of a Reader in the University was that the applicant should possess a First or High Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a foreign University, the candidate should possess a First Class Master's Degree of an Indian University or High Second Class Master's degree of an Indian University or qualification of a foreign university which is equivalent to a First Class or a High Second Class Master's degree of an Indian University. Whether the (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 8 foreign degree is equivalent to a High Second Class Master's degree of an Indian University is a question relating purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, specially when the selection Board of experts considers a particular foreign university degree as so equivalent."
16. Similarly Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of MOHAMMAD SHUJAT ALI AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS(1975) 3 SCC 76 in which Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that question in regard to equivalence of educational qualification is a technical question based on proper assessment by holding 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 standards 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. ..."
17. Not only that, in the matter of STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS V. LATA ARUN (2002) 6 SCC 252 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that question of equivalence of qualification are the matters which falls within the realm of the policy decision to be taken by the state by holding as under:-
"13. From the ratio of the decisions 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. Besides, in the case of GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 9 V. SANJAY KUMAR KATWAL AND ANOTHER(2009) 1 SCC 610, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in no uncertain terms that equivalence is a technical academic matter and decision on question of equivalence must be by specific order or resolution duly published, by holding as under: -
"15. ...Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the appellant University has recognised MA (English) (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to MA of appellant University. Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant University for admission to the three year law course."
19. Recently, in the case of PRAKASH CHAND MEENA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS(2015) 8 SCC 484, a question of equivalence of two qualifications which may be treated as equivalent came up before the Supreme Court in which Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that in the matter of eligibility qualification, equivalent qualification must be recognized as such in existing recruitment rules or government order existing on or before the initiation of recruitment process and observed as under: -
"... In the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent qualification must be recognised as such in the recruitment rules or government order existing on or before the initiation of recruitment process..."
20. Still further, Division Bench of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur, in W.P.(S) No.2992/2015 titled SUDHIR DEWANGAN V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS, decided on 14-9-2015, while examining the issue as to whether the degree in Electrical Engineering would be equivalent to the degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering, has held as under: -
"... We are in agreement with the submission on behalf of the State Counsel that the nomenclature of the two courses being (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 10 different there has to be difference in the nature of study and knowledge imparted in the two disciplines, course content, qualifications acquired etc. It is not open for the Court in academic matters to declare equivalence of courses as may have been advertised by the employer."
21. Not only that, similar view has been expressed in the following cases also:-
(a) C.W.P. No. 18353 of 2015 - SEEMA & ANOTHER VS.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER of Punjab and Haryana High Court, dated 4.9.2015. In this case on delay also, claim was rejected.
(b) BABITA RANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, 2002 (2) SCT 1029, it was held that "Whether a given qualification is equivalent to or higher than the prescribed qualifications, that too on certain conjectures and surmises is not for the Courts to determine. It is for the specialized agencies to determine equivalence of qualifications or such allied matters. This has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and reference can be made to the case of RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR V. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND ANR. AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448."
© CWP No. 8377 of 2007 - FARZANA VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI by Hon'ble Delhi High Court
(d) RITESH DUTTA & ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, 2012 (1) SCT 219.
(e) DR. J.B. DILAWARI VS. PGI OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH, 1995 (2) SCT
706.
(f) NARENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER VS. HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 2012(4) RSJ 89.
(g) RAKESH & ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS CWP NO. 14939 OF 2001.
(h) SOM DUTT VS. STATE OF HARYANA, 1983 (3) SLR 141,
22. Not only that a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of SANDEEP DHULL VS. U.T. CHANDIGARH, O.A. No. 060/01038/2015 decided on 28.3.2017 (Annexure R-3) has also taken the similar view holding therein that Master's Degree in Physical Education is not a higher and better qualification than the (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER) 11 B.P.Ed/ D.P.Ed in the same line and discipline and further, that a degree of M.P. Ed does not pre-suppose acquisition of B.P. Ed/D.P. Ed.
23. It has also been held in clear terms from time to time that equivalence of educational qualification is purely a technical academic matter and it has to be done by appropriate authority / expert that too by specific order duly published prior to initiation of recruitment process. Admittedly, in this case the applicant himself admits in para 4 (ii) of the O.A. that he has studied "majority of the subjects that are taught in Postgraduate Degree/Diploma in Material Management". Thus, it is admitted position that Postgraduate Degree / Diploma in Material Management is different from Post Graduate Degree / Diploma in Retail Management.
24. In the wake of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we are of the firm view that this O.A. merits dismissal and is accordingly rejected. However, the parties are left to bear their own respective costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (P. GOPINATH) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh.
Dated: 26.09.2018 HC* (OA.No. 060/00218/2017- Manoj Kumar Vs. PGIMER)