Allahabad High Court
Aakash Verma And 332 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Home ... on 26 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 397
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Reserved on: 24.11.2020 Delivered on: 26.03.2021 Court No. - 20 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20385 of 2019 Petitioner :- Aakash Verma And 332 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. and Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Laltaprasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Himanshu Raghave Connected with Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20505 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Verma & Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishita Yadu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. AND Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24584 of 2019 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar & Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. AND Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20251 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anjali Singh And 18 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. and Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Laltaprasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
1. Since common questions are involved in all the above-mentioned writ petitions, they are being decided together.
2. Mainly, the following two prayers have been made in all the writ petitions :-
(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Uttar Pradesh Service Recruitment and Promotion Board to do the document verification of the petitioners by treating them as qualified and eligible and the petitioners be also subjected to further process of recruitment as contemplated under Rule 17 of Uttar Pradesh Police Ministerial, Accounts, Confidential Assistant Cadres Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2016.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of ASI, while treating the degrees possessed by the petitioner as equivalent to the 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
3. Vide order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.20385 (SS) of 2019, Writ Petition No.20251 (SS) of 2019 & Writ Petition No.24584 (SS) of 2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed that if any appointment is made during pendency of the writ petitions, the same shall be subject to final outcome of writ petitions and this fact shall be mentioned in every appointment letter, if issued, during pendency of the writ petitions.
4. For proper adjudication, facts of Writ Petition No.20385 (SS) of 2019 are being taken up.
5. Brief facts of the case are as follows :
(i) The respondent no.2/U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board issued an Advertisement dated 26.12.2016 inviting applications from the male candidates for making recruitment on the 136 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential), 303 posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) and 170 posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Accounts) i.e. total 609 posts. As per advertisement, date of online registration for filling up the aforesaid posts was from 12.01.2017 to 11.02.2017. Last date of depositing the application fee was 14.02.2017 and last date of final submission of application form was 18.02.2017. The petitioners submitted their online application for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the aforesaid posts as per the advertisement.
(ii) As per the advertisement, the following were essential educational qualification:
"(i) Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial):
(a) Bachelor Degree from a University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government.
(b) Hindi typing with speed of at least 25 words per minute and English Typing with speed of at least 30 words per minute (Uni-code based using in-script-key board or as prescribed by the Head of Department).
(c)Certificate of 'O' level in Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society.
(ii) Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Accounts):
(a) Bachelor Degree in Commerce or Post-Graduate Diploma in Accountancy from an University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government.
(b) Hindi Typing (Uni-code based using in-script-key board or as prescribed by the Head of Department) with speed of at least 15 words per minute.
(c) Certificate of 'O' level in Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society.
(iii) Sub-Inspector of Police (Confidential):
(a) Bachelor Degree from a University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government.
(b) Hindi Typing with speed of at least 25 words per minute and English Typing with speed of at least 30 words per minute (Uni-code based using in-script-key board or as prescribed by the Head of Department).
(c) Hindi shorthand dictation with a speed of minimum 80 words per minute.
(d) Certificate of 'O' level in Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society."
(iii) As per the advertisement, preferential qualifications for applying the aforesaid posts were: (a) Higher certification from DOEACC/NIELIT (b) Graduation in law from any institute or college or university recognised by University Grants Commission (UGC) (c) has served in the Territorial Army for at least two years (d) possess 'B' Certificate of National Cadet Corps.
(iv) Clause 4 of Advertisement dated 26.12.2016 provides that recruitment on the aforesaid posts shall be made under U.P. Police Ministerial, Accounts, Confidential Assistant Cadre Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 2016').
(v) The online written examination was held on 22.12.2018 and thereafter, the answer key was issued, which was available on the official website of respondent no.2 w.e.f. 03.01.2019 to 06.01.2019. Result of the said examination was declared by respondent no.2 on 08.03.2019 and all the petitioners herein were declared successful in the said examination.
(vi) The respondent no.2 issued admit card to the petitioners for appearing in the next stage of selection process i.e. for verification/scrutiny of documents and physical standard test as per notice dated 03.07.2019 under Rule 17 of 2016 Rules. The petitioners herein presented themselves alongwith relevant documents for verification of documents and for physical standard test as per schedule but they were orally informed that their candidature is being rejected on the ground that they do not possess the 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT and the signatures of the petitioners were taken on the application form wherein an endorsement was made by respondent no.2 that their candidature is being cancelled due to non-submission of 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. The scrutiny held w.e.f. 11.07.2019 to 14.07.2019.
(vii) The respondent no.2 declared the date of holding the Computer Tying Test and Stenography examination vide notice dated 22.07.2019 and 29.07.2019 but the petitioners were not invited for the said tests.
(viii) There is no dispute with regard to possessing the qualification of Bachelor Degree from an University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government. The dispute in the instant writ petitions is only confined to the certificate of 'O' level issued by DOEACC/NIELIT because of which the petitioners have been non-suited on the ground that they do not possess certificate of 'O' level issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
6. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that crux of the matter in the present writ petitions is that the petitioners have been non-suited on the ground that they do not possess 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT, whereas the petitioners were having higher degree or diploma in computer course issued by institutes duly recognized and affiliated by the Board of Technical Education/University/UGC/AICTE or IGNOU. It is further submitted that the course of 'O' level certificate mentioned in the advertisement is one year duration course and is a foundational course, whereas the duration of courses done by the petitioners vary from one year to four year and the syllabus of 'O' level course is included in the syllabus of courses done by the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners also possess 'O' level certificate.
7. In support of the aforesaid argument, Dr. Mishra, has invited attention of the Court towards the syllabus of 'O' level course and the syllabus of M.C.A., B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc. (C.S.) which are possessed by the petitioners and submitted that in the courses done by the petitioners, 'O' level course is included, therefore, the petitioners possess the requisite qualification for being selected and appointed on the post for which they had applied.
8. Dr. Mishra has submitted that respondent no.2 also issued an advertisement in the year 2013 for recruitment on the post of Computer Operator Grade - A and the following was the essential educational qualification as mentioned in the advertisement :-
"(i) Must have passed the Intermediate Examination with Physics and Mathematics as subjects from recognised Board.
And Must have passed 'O' level examination in Computer from DOEACC of the Government of India or a qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto.
(ii) Must have obtained a Diploma in Computer Engineering, Information Technology or Electronics Engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh or a qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto."
9. In the aforesaid advertisement, a dispute was raised by the candidates possessing higher degrees who were not allowed to appear in the document verification and on the controversy, respondent no.2 constituted a Committee comprising Sri D.C. Yadav, Pro. Vice Chancellor/Pro. Computer Science, U.P.T.U., Lucknow; Dr. Raghuraj Singh, Prof. and Head of Department of Computer Science, H.B.T.I., Kanpur, U.P.; and Shri Asraf Ali, Principal Government Polytechnic Aadampur, Gonda for considering the equivalence of technical qualification with respect to the qualification acquired by a candidate. The committee submitted its report dated 03.03.2014 and 04.09.2013, wherein the higher degrees and diplomas as possessed by the petitioners were declared as equivalent and above to 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
10. Learned counsel has submitted that the degrees and diplomas required by the petitioners are covered under the Committee reports dated 03.03.2014 and 04.09.2013 under Serial Nos.12 and 17, as such, they are legally entitled for getting their documents verified and also to appear in the Physical Standard Test and other process of selection as contemplated under Rule 17 of 2016 Rules. It is submitted that, therefore, the educational qualification as mentioned in the advertisement i.e. 'O' level certificate is a part of syllabus of degrees and diplomas possessed by the petitioners, thus, the petitioners are also eligible as per advertisement dated 26.12.2016.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that rejection of candidature of the petitioners on the ground that they do not possess 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT cannot be a ground for their rejection.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of Abha Tripathi and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. - (2016) 6 ALL LJ 66 and submitted that the candidates who possess the degree issued by the University shall be eligible for appointment wherein the equivalent Degree in Computers has been asked for.
13. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2020 SCC Online SC 823 and submitted that if two degrees are identical, there is no question of equivalence.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttrakhand & Ors. v. Deep Chandra Tiwari & Ors - 2013 SCC Online SC 1141 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"11. 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 fulfill 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 no relevance with the functions attached with the post."
15. It is submitted that denying opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the selection process for appointment on the aforesaid posts amounts to unreasonable classification, adoption of dual standards and arbitrariness as similarly situated candidates holding computer certificates equivalent to 'O' level certificate were earlier allowed to participate in selection for similar posts under the department.
16. Dr. Mishra has vehemently submitted that in the case of Deepak Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ - A No.24273 of 2018 decided on 23.07.2019), it has been established that the curriculum of the Diploma in Engineering and the Graduation Degree in Engineering are essentially different. Whereas, in the instant matter, the petitioners have studied the same curriculum from a State established University for the same duration of one year, as is taught by DOEACC/NIELIT. Mr. Mishra has further submitted hence the facts of the matter are substantially different in the present case and that the judgment of the Larger Bench in Deepak Singh's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable and not applicable on the facts of the instant case.
17. It is submitted that a person seeking recruitment cannot be deprived of being recruited if the person seeking recruitment meets the requisite criteria of qualification(s).
18. Dr. Mishra has lastly submitted that vide Uttar Pradesh Police Ministerial, Accounts and Confidential Assistants Cadres Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 2020, the minimum educational qualification required for appointment on the post of ASI contained in Rule 10(1) has been amended to include any qualification equivalent to the 'O' level certificate of NIELIT/ DOEACC recognized by the Government. He has further submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid Amendment and decision taken, the Additional Secretary (Recruitment), U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board has issued Notification dated 09.07.2020, whereby it has been clearly laid down that a certificate issued by a Board/ University/ UGC/AICTE/IGNOU/NIELIT(DOEACC) established or recognized by the State/Central Government shall be treated as equivalent to the 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC Society, as long as the course upon whose completion such certificate has been issued, was for a duration of one year or more. Therefore, there is no reason to oust the petitioners from the selection process at hand as the petitioners possess the degree equivalent to the 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC Society and are fully eligible for appointment on the post of ASI.
19. Per Contra, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that Point No.3.2 of advertisement dated 26.12.2016/Rule 10 of 2016 Rules provides for essential qualification for direct recruitment of the advertised posts.
20. Learned counsel has submitted that after declaration of result, according to Clause - C of Rule 17 of 2016 Rules, the candidates had to appear for scrutiny of the documents and Physical Standard Test. The successful candidates from 11.07.2019 to 14.07.2019 had appeared for verification of the documents and physical standard test. It is submitted that the candidates whose documents were not in accordance to the required documents as per advertisement dated 26.12.2016 were not allowed for the next stage.
21. It is submitted that the writ petitioners had qualified the written examination and at the time of scrutiny of the documents they were rejected on the ground that they do not possess 'O' level certificated issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that in Point No.3.2 of Advertisement dated 26.12.2016 and in Rule 10 of 2016 Rules, it is specifically provided that only 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT is necessary.
22. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that one of the required qualifications for vacant posts is 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. There is no optional clause in the advertisement or in the 2016 Rules, hence it is imperative for the candidates to possess statutory qualification prescribed for appointment to the concerned post. Possession of higher qualification certificate as against prescribed qualification is inconsequential.
23. Learned counsel has submitted that it is settled law that the recruitment process must be completed as per terms and conditions given in the advertisement and as per rules existing when the recruitment process began. Equivalent or higher qualification can only be seen if the recruitment rules provide for the same and if such advertisement inviting applications does not indicate that equivalent or higher qualification holders are eligible to apply then higher or equivalent qualifications should not be considered.
24. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that rules of a game cannot be changed after the game starts. In the present selection process, the requisite qualification was prescribed as "a candidate having the 'O' level certificate from a certain society i.e. DOEACC/NIELIT is eligible" and the said qualification is required in view of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have been rightly denied the candidature during scrutiny/verification of documents.
25. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmed Rather and Ors. v. Shekh Imtiaz Ahmed and Ors. - (2019) 2 SCC 404, in which the following has been held in Para - 26:
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329]. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench."
26. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment rendered by a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. rendered in Writ - A No.24273 of 2018 decided on 23.07.2019 wherein it has been observed that the State Government while prescribing the essential qualifications or desirable qualifications are best suited to decide requirements for selecting a candidate for nature of work required by the State Government and the Courts are precluded from laying down the conditions of eligibility. The Court further observed that the 'O' level Diploma granted by NIELIT is not equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application.
27. It is submitted that the recruitment process of the vacant posts under reference had been completed and the successful candidates had joined the said posts. It is further submitted that Uttar Pradesh Police Ministerial, Accounts and Confidential Assistants Cadres Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 2020, as relied by the petitioners' counsel, can not be given retrospective effect in the advertisements in question.
28. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances and law settled, the instant writ petitioners are devoid of merit and be dismissed as such.
29. I have heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners; Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the records as well as written submissions filed by the parties as also the judgments cited above.
30. Before I proceed to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I need to consider the relevant clauses of advertisement (Clause 3.2 & 3.3) and relevant rules (Rules 10 & 17), which are reproduced hereinunder:-
"3.2 - शैक्षिक अर्हता:
1) - पुलिस उप निरीक्षक (गोपनीय) पद के लिए (क) - भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित विश्वविद्यालय से स्नातक उपाधि या सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त समकक्ष अर्हता, (ख) - कम से कम 25 शब्द प्रति मिनट की गति से हिन्दी टंकण (इन्स्क्रिप्ट की-बोर्ड पर यूनीकोड में) तथा कम से कम 30 शब्द प्रति मिनट की गति से अंग्रेजी टंकण, (ग) - न्यूनतम 80 शब्द प्रति मिनट की गति से हिन्दी आशुलिपि श्रुतिलेख.
(घ) - डोएक/नाइलिट सोसायटी से कम्प्यूटर में 'ओ' स्तर का प्रमाण पत्र।
(2) - पुलिस सहायक उप निरीक्षक (लिपिक )पद के लिए (क) - भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित विश्वविद्यालय से स्नातक उपाधि या सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त समकक्ष अर्हता (ख) - कम से कम 25 शब्द प्रति मिनट की गति से हिन्दी टंकण (इन्स्क्रिप्ट की बोर्ड पर यूनीकोड में) तथा कम से कम 30 शब्द प्रति मिनट की गति से अंग्रेजी टंकण, (ग)- डोएक/नाइलिट सोसायटी से कम्प्यूटर में 'ओ' स्तर का प्रमाण (3) - पुलिस सहायक उप निरीक्षक (लेखा) पद के लिए पत्र।
(क) - भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित विश्वविद्यालय से वाणिज्य में स्नातक उपाधि या लेखा शास्त्र परास्नातक डिप्लोमा या सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त समकक्ष अर्हता, (ख) - कम से कम 15 शब्द प्रति मिनट की गति से हिन्दी टंकण इन्स्क्रिप्ट की बोर्ड पर यूनीकोड में) (ग) - डोएक/नाइिलट सोसायटी से कम्प्यूटर में 'ओ' स्तर का प्रमाण पत्र।
टिप्पणी (1) पंजीकरण की अन्तिम तिथि तक अभ्यर्थी को अपेक्षित शैक्षिक अर्हता अवश्य धारित करनी चाहिए तथा उसकी अंकतालिका अथवा प्रमाण- पत्र उसके पास उपलब्ध होने चाहियें। अपेक्षित शैक्षिक अर्हता हेतु परीक्षा में सम्मिलित हुए (appeared) अथवा सम्मिलित होने वाले (appearing) अभ्यर्थी पात्र न होंगे।
(2) आवेदन पत्र में उल्लिखित शैक्षिक अर्हता की यथार्थता, शुद्धता एवं समकक्षता को सिद्ध करने के लिए अभिलेखीय साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने का दायित्व अभ्यर्थी का होगा। इस सम्बन्ध में बोर्ड का निर्णय अंतिम होगा।
3.3 - अधिमानी अर्हतायें:
अन्य बातों के समान होने पर ऐसे अभ्यर्थी को अधिमान दिया जायेगा जिसने:
(1) - डोएक (DOEACC) नाइलिट (NIELIT) सोसायटी से उच्च प्रमाणीकरण या सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त कम्प्यूटर अपलीकेशना/ प्रौद्योगिकी में स्नातक उपाधि या उससे उच्च अर्हता प्राप्त किया हो, (2) - विश्वविद्यालय अनुदान आयोग से मान्यता प्राप्त किसी संस्थान या महाविद्यालय या विश्वविद्यालय से विधि में स्नातक किया हो, (3) - प्रादेशिक सेना में कम से कम दो वर्ष की सेवा की हो, (4)- राष्ट्रीय कैडेट कोर का 'बी' प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त किया हो।"
XXX XXX XXX Rule 10:
Essential qualification for direct recruitment:
"(i) Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial):
(a) Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government.
(b) Hindi typing with speed of at least 25 words per minute and English Typing with speed of at least 30 words per minute (Uni-code based using in-script-key board or as prescribed by the Head of Department).
(c)Certificate of 'O' level in Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society.
(ii) Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Accounts):
(a) Bachelor's Degree in Commerce or Post-Graduate Diploma in Accountancy from an University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government.
(b) Hindi Typing (Uni-code based using in-script-key board or as prescribed by the Head of Department) with speed of at least 15 words per minute.
(c) Certificate of 'O' level in Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society.
(iii) Sub-Inspector of Police (Confidential):
(a) Bachelor's Degree from a University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government.
(b) Hindi Typing with speed of at least 25 words per minute and English Typing with speed of at least 30 words per minute (Uni-code based using in-script-key board or as prescribed by the Head of Department).
(c) Hindi shorthand dictation with a speed of minimum 80 words per minute.
(d) Certificate of 'O' level in Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society."
Rule 17:
Procedure for Direct recruitment (A) Application Form and Call Letter:-
A candidate shall fill only one application Form. The Board will accept, only online applications. The Head of the Department, in consultation with the Board, shall fix an application fee for a recruitment. Detailed procedure for filling the Application Form and issuance of call letter shall be determined by the Board and shall be displayed on its website or be published in the notification.
The Government may change the number of vacancies for any recruitment at any time before the first examination and may also cancel any recruitment at any time or stage of recruitment without assigning any reason therefor.
(B) Written Examination:
Candidates whose applications are found correct, shall be required to appear for written test or 100 marks. In this written examination the Board will keep one objective type question paper of four following subjects:
Subjects Maximum Marks
1. General Hindi/Computer Knowledge 100 Marks (Objective Type)
2. General Knowledge/Current Affiars 100 Marks (Objective Type)
3. Numerical and Mental Ability Test 100 Marks (Objective Type)
4. Mental Aptitude Test/I.Q. Test/Reasoning 100 Marks (Objective Type) Candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment. The Board will decide on its own level to conduct written examination on one date in a single shift or in more than one shift or on more than one date in different shifts with different question paper. Detailed procedure and syllabus for written examination shall be determined by the Board and will be displayed on its website or shall be published in the notification.
(C) Scrutiny of Documents and Physical Standard Test Candidates found successful in written examination under clause (B) shall be required to appear in Scrutiny of Documents and Physical Standard Test. Keeping in view the total number of. vacancies, the Board shall decide at its own level, the number of candidates on the basis of merit to be called for this test. Physical Standards for candidates are as follows:
1. Minimum Physical Standards for male candidates are as follows:
(a) Height:
(i) for General/Other Backward classes and Scheduled Castes male candidates height should be 163 minimum centimetres
(ii) for Scheduled Tribes male candidates minimum height should be 156 cemtimeters
(b) Chest:
For the candidates belonging to General Other Backward classes and Scheduled Castes minimum chest measurement should be 77 centimetres without expansion and at least 82 centimetres with expansion; and for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes 75 centimetres without expansion and not less than 80 centimetres on expansion.
Note: Minimum 5 centimete chest expansion is essential
2. Minimum physical Standards for female candidates are as follows:
(a) Height:
(i) for General or Other Backward classes and Scheduled Castes female candidates minimum height should be 150 centimetres.
(ii) for Scheduled Tribes female candidates minimum height should be 145 centimetres
(b) Weight: Minimum 40 Kg. for female candidates.
For conducting this examination a committee will be constituted by the Board in which a Deputy Collector nominated by the District Magistrate will the Chairman and the Deputy Superintendent of Police nominated by the District Superintendent of Police will be the member. The other members of the committee shall be nominated by the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police if requested by the board.
Detailed procedure for this examination shall be determined by the Board and will be displayed on its website or shall be published in the notification.
If any candidate is not satisfied with his Physical Standard Test, he may file an objection on the same day after the test.
For clearing all such objection: the Board nominate one Additional Superintendent of Police at every place and Physical Standard Test of all such candidates will be conducted again by the committee in the presence of the said nominated Additional Superintendent of Police. All those candidates who are again found unsuccessful in the Physical Standard Test will be declared unfit for recruitment and no further appeal will be entertained in this regard.
D) Computer Typing and Stenography Examination Candidates found successful in Scrutiny of Documents and Medical Examination as per part (C) shall be required to appear in the computer typing test of qualifying nature. The qualifying typing speed shall be as per the post which has been applied for by the candidate. Only those candidates who have applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Confidential) and qualify the required typing test as above, shall have to appear in stenography test which shall be of qualifying nature. The procedure for the examination shall be decided by the Board and will be displayed on its website or shall be published in the notification.
(E) Selection and Final Merit List From amongst candidates who have qualified in computer typing and from amongst those candidates who have applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Confidential) and have qualified the stenography test also, the Board shall prepare a select list of candidates of each post separately as per vacancies, on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them in Written examination, keeping in view the reservation policy, and send it with recommendation to the Head of the Department, subject to Medical test/character verification. No waiting list shall be prepared by the Board. List of all such candidates with marks obtained by each candidate shall be uploaded on its website by the Board. The Head of the Department shall after his approval forward the list sent by the Board to the Appointing Authority for further action.
Note:- If two or more than two candidates obtain equal marks then their seniority shall be decided by the procedure laid down in the following order:
(1) If two or more candidates obtain equal marks then such candidate will be given preference who possesses preferential qualification, if any in the same order as stated in rule (11). Candidate having more than one preferential qualification shall get the benefit of any one preferential qualification (2) Even then if two or more candidates have equal marks then candidate older in age shall be given preference.
(3) If despite the aforementioned more than one candidates are equal, then preference to such candidate shall be determined according to the order in English Alphabets of their names mentioned in High School Certificate.
(F) Medical Test:
The candidates whose names are in the select list as per clause (c), will be required to appear for Medical Examination by the Appointing authority. For conducting the medical examination, the Chief Medical Officer of the concerned district shall constitute a Medical Board, which will have 03 doctors, who will conduct Medical Examination as per Police Recruitment Medical Examination Forms as prescribed and codified by the Head of Department in consultation with the Director General of Medical Health. Any candidate not satisfied by his Medical Examination, may file an appeal on the day of examination itself. Any appeal with regard to Medical Examination will not be considered if the candidate fails to file the appeal on the date of Medical Examination and declaration of its result itself. The Medical Board constituted for appeal shall have expert regarding Medical deficiency of the applicant. The detailed instructions for conducting Medical examination will be issued by the Director General of Police. The candidates found unsuccessful in Medical Examination shall be declared unfit by the Appointing authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for next selection.
(G) Character Verification:
Character Verification shall be completed under the supervision of appointing authority before issuing of appointment letter and before sending the candidates for training. On adverse fact coming to light during character verification of any candidate, he shall be declared unfit by the appointing authority and such vacancy shall be carried forward for next selection.
31. Para - 26 of the writ petition provides comparative chart of all courses completed by the petitioners with the syllabus of 'O' level course. After comparing the syllabus of 'O' level course of DOEACC/NIELIT with the qualifications which the petitioners are possessing, it is clear that syllabus of 'O' level course is included in the degrees/diplomas possessed by the petitioners.
32. The eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of ASI comprised of three components i.e. (1) Educational qualification of graduation, (2) Foundational knowledge in computers and (3) competence in typing. The process of selection also consist three stages i.e. (1) written examination, (2) document verification and physical standard test and (3) typing test.
33. In the instant case, all the petitioners herein qualified written examination but they have been denied at second stage i.e. document verification and physical standard test on the ground that they do not possess 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT, which is a one year foundational course in Computer.
34. Now the first issue for adjudication before this Court is whether it is permissible for the respondents to insist on 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT for appointment on the posts advertised ?
35. In the case of Ganesh Kuwarbi and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. - 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 1917, the following has been held in Paras - 6, 7, 9 & 10:-
"6. Since, this Court was not an expert in this field, this Court vide order dated 09.04.2014 had directed the authorities to constitute a Committee to examine the computer operation certificates of the candidates, whether they have equivalent or higher qualification in such field. In compliance of this Court's order, a Committee was constituted and such Committee examined the computer certificates of the petitioners and other candidates and after examination of the certificates, the Committee came to a conclusion that there is a partial similarity in the Course which the petitioners have done with the ''O' Level computer course. The Committee further said that in case the Certificates are recognized by the organizations of the Centre or State Government, their matter be considered sympathetically. This is the report which has been filed before this Court. However, in the aforesaid report, there is absolutely no clarity as to the worth of the computer certificates which each of the petitioners have except that these certificates are either by the University established by law or recognized either by the State or Central Government.
7. The insistence on ''O' Level certificates issued by the DOEACC society in the present case does not appear to be reasonable, as this Court has been informed that there are not sufficient number of institutions in the State of Uttarakhand granting such Certificates. In fact, out of 145 only 59 candidates were having such certificates. By and large, the candidates who reside in hill areas have been ousted from the competition, as they do not have such certificates for the simple reason that the area to which they belong, DOEACC society does not have such institutions.
9. In view thereof, this Court finds that since the intention of the Government was to see whether each candidates has computer knowledge and computer operating skills and if the candidates have undergone such course which gives them this ability and the course is recognized either by the State Government or by the University, then the Public Service Commission shall constitute a Committee which will comprise one representative of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another representative of the Uttarakhand Technical Education Board and one representative appointed by the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Uttarakhand who would be an expert in the field of computer science, preferably from the recognized Institute in Uttarakhand such as Indian Institute of Technology.
10. The three members Committee shall examine the computer skill certificates of each of the petitioners and if such certificates are found to be recognized by the University or Government of India body or State Government then for such candidates a computer operation skill test be conducted, and if they are found to be up to the mark in the operation of computer and are judged to be skilled in computer, they be accordingly marked and recommendations made.
36. In the case of B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - (1982) 2 SCC 55, the following has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para - 10 :-
"10..................A post-graduate medical degree granted by a University duly established by statute in this country and which has also been recognised by the Indian Medical Council by inclusion in the Schedule to the Medical Council Act has ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other Universities in any State in India before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a State. The Division Bench of the High Court was, in our opinion, manifestly in error in thinking that since the post-graduate degree possessed by the appellant was not one obtained from the University of Rajasthan, it could not be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in question in the absence of any specific order by the University of Rajasthan recognising the said degree or declaring it as an equivalent qualification..................."
37. The 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT is a foundation course in Computer. Insistence on allowing only such candidates to be appointed who have obtained training from a particular institute give rise to the institutional exclusivity having no reasonable basis for classification between the certificates issued by DOEACC/NIELIT and other State established universities.
38. In the case of Sadhna Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2011 (5) ADJ 54, it has been categorically held that exclusion of candidates from recruitment process solely because their degrees have been issued by universities situated in the State of Jammu and Kashmir would amount to hostile and invidious discrimination violating the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and such candidates cannot be put to fault simply because the institute that issued their certificate is situated in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioners on the basis of institutional exclusivity amounts to unreasonable classification having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
39. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the first question is answered. Thus, insistence on 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT is unreasonable and someone's candidature cannot be rejected solely on the ground that he or she does not possess 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
40. The second and principal issue for adjudication before this Court is whether holding of basic educational qualification of Graduation can presuppose the acquisition of foundational knowledge in Computer if the syllabus of foundational knowledge of Computer is itself covered under the course of Graduation ?
41. For adjudicating the aforesaid issue, the intent of legislature is required to be understood first. The intention of the legislature/employer in providing the requirement of 'O' level certificate for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors is to recruit the candidates suitable to work efficiently in the changing work environment of government offices, which aims to make government services available to citizens electronically by online infrastructure. It also aims to empower the country digitally in the domain of technology.
42. The objective of 'O' level certification is to enable a student to acquire the knowledge pertaining to fundamentals of Information Technology (IT Tools and Business Systems, Internet Technology and Web design, Programming and Problem Solving through ''C' Language, Application of .NET Technology, Introduction to Multimedia, and Introduction to ICT Resources, a Practical and Project Work). Therefore, it is clearly evident that the motive of State/employer in adding the requirement of ''O" level course in addition to qualification of Bachelor Degree is to recruit the candidates with the basic Information Technology skills so that the requirements of government departments in the changing scenario of digitization is met with.
43. After analyzing the intent of the legislature, it is obvious that there can be two categories of candidates in such type of cases applying for the posts mentioned in advertisement i.e. (i) the candidates who possess regular bachelor degrees like B.A, B.Com, B.Sc etc., and (ii) the candidates who possess Bachelor Degree/Diploma in the Computer Science like B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc.(C.S.), B.C.A. etc.
44. As per the intention of the employer in advertisement, it is mandatory and desirable for the candidates who fall in the first category and possess regular Bachelor Degrees e.g., B.A., B.Sc. B.Com. (without any component of Information Technology syllabus) to pursue a one year ''O' level course and possess the certificate of said qualification as on the date of advertisement. If such a candidate does not possess the said qualification then he/she shall without any doubt be not eligible for the selection on posts advertised. However, if a candidate possesses a basic qualification/degree like B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc.(C.S.), B.C.A. etc., which includes the foundational course in Computer, such graduation degrees/diplomas of the candidates being a 3 or 4 year degree/diploma courses shall presuppose the acquisition of one year ''O' Level Course. Thus, it can be said that candidates possessing such a nature of basic educational qualification degree are well versed with the syllabus of 'O' level course.
45. In the instant case there are sufficient material on record to establish that qualifications possessed by the petitioners were in the same line of progression and also that the entire syllabus as is prescribed for grant of 'O' Level Certificate in Computer is also the syllabus studied by the petitioners in their respective degree/diploma courses.
46. In view of the above, it is clearly evident from comparison of the syllabus of one year ''O' level course with the courses of B.Tech., B.Sc., B.C.A. etc., done by the petitioners herein that the syllabus of "O' Level is entirely covered under the syllabus of aforesaid 3 or 4 year degree/diploma courses.
47. The ratio of the judgment as relied by the respondents in Zahoor Ahmad's case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome."
48. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra), the required essential qualification was ITI certificate, as a prime qualification, and the appellants therein were possessing Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics and Communication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of a specific statutory rule under which holding of higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification, the higher qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics and Communication cannot be said to presuppose the required qualification of ITI certificate. However, in the case in hand, there are multiple essential qualifications required for the advertised posts. The petitioners' case is not that they are possessing higher degree, instead the only case is that syllabus of 'O' level computer course - which is one of the educational qualifications in the advertisement - is included in their basic education i.e. B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc (C.S.), B.C.A. etc., being a 3 or 4 year degree/diploma courses, therefore, they are entitled to participate in the vacancy and need not to be in possession of 'O' level course from DOEACC/NIELIT, which is only a one year foundational course. If the same is not done, it would be highly undesirable to ask or require any person who has already completed a 3 or 4 year degree/diploma course in the domain of computer science to pursue and produce a certificate of one year ''O' Level Course which is a foundation course in the same domain. However, the requirement of ''O' Level Course is proper for candidates whose bachelor degrees like B.A., B.Com etc., are not in domain of computer science or those who are not entirely covered under the syllabus of 'O' level. In such circumstances, it is clearly evident that the ratio of Zahoor Ahmad case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.
49. So far as ratio of Deepak Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the said case is also not applicable in the instant case because in Deepak Singh's (supra) there was a specific bar and the candidates holding higher degree were categorically excluded for being considered under the said advertisement, and also there was no material on record to show that qualification possessed by the petitioners therein was in same line of the progression. However, in the instant case there is no such bar and also there is sufficient material on record to establish that the qualification possessed by the petitioners herein covers the syllabus 'O' level Course, which is one of the basic essential qualification.
50. The concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equal opportunity to all eligible persons to compete for selection and appointment to a public employment. A person who should be appointed substantively on a particular post under recruitment rules by the State must be most meritorious and suitable person for holding that post for the reason that every appointment made by the State is made in the larger public interest and not for private interest of any person. The right to public employment is a new form of property. It is not only a vast source of patronage for the Government but is also a great source of living and happiness to our unemployed millions. Public employment being property of the nation should not be monopolized.
51. In view of the above discussions and observations, it would be suffice to say that a candidate who can provide conclusive evidence that he/she has educational qualification or experience at least equal to what is required by the minimum qualification deserves careful consideration, even if their degrees have titles different from those recognized in the disciplines list or if they acquired their qualifications by a route other than a conventional one.
52. Consequently, all the above mentioned writ petitions are allowed.
53. Respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as in the light of observations made hereinabove and allow them to participate in the Physical Standard Test and subsequent selection process in pursuance of Advertisement No.PRPB-2-1(9)/2016 dated 26.12.2016 & Advertisement No.PRPB-2-1(9)/2016(Part-1) dated 22.12.2016.
Order Date :- 26.03.2021 Nishant (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)