Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vishnu Bawaree S/O Sajjan Lal Bawaree vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1613/2018
Vishnu Bawaree S/o Sajjan Lal Bawaree, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village And Post Pillu, Via Rathanjna, Tehsil And District
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt.
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, College Education, Shiksha Shankul, Jln
Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Palia for Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta for Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG, through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 26/07/2021
1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 4.12.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking directions to the respondents to allow him to participate in the interview for selection to the post of Lecturer in Economic Administration & Financial Management ('EAFM'), pursuant to the advertisement (Downloaded on 28/07/2021 at 09:33:14 PM) (2 of 6) [SAW-1613/2018] dated 12.1.15, issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), has been dismissed.
2. The RPSC invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in various subjects, under the provisions of Rajasthan Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 ('the Rules'). The eligibility qualification as prescribed in the advertisement was good academic record with Masters Degree in relevant subjects from an University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university, National Eligibility Test (NET), conducted by University Grants Commission (UGC), CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. The candidates who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 were exempted from requirement of minimum eligibility condition of NET, SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in the Universities/Colleges/Institutions. NET/SLET/SET was also not required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted.
3. The appellant having the qualification of Masters in Business Administration (MBA), aspirant for appointment to the post of Lecturer in EAFM, filed a writ petition under the apprehension that on account of the eligibility qualification as prescribed, his application form for recruitment to the said post shall not be accepted by the respondent-RPSC.
4. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contended that since he has passed his MBA as also the NET Examination, he is eligible to be appointed on the post of Lecturer in the subject EAFM. Precisely, the case of the appellant was that MBA being a (Downloaded on 28/07/2021 at 09:33:14 PM) (3 of 6) [SAW-1613/2018] post-graduate degree in subject having a relation to Economics & Finance, it deserves to be considered equivalent to Post Graduation in EAFM.
5. On behalf of the RPSC, it was contended that the condition of eligibility for the post of Lecturer (EAFM) inter alia includes a Post Graduate qualification in subject with a good academic record as also NET/SLET/SET or Ph.D. in lieu thereof and therefore, the appellant who admittedly has not been Post Graduate in EAFM and does not also have NET/SLET/SET or Ph.D. therein, is not eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in EAFM. It was further contended that the issue of equivalence of MBA with the Post Graduate in EAFM is not a matter which can be adjudicated by this Court.
6. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge opined that the subject of EAFM is distinct from MBA. Whether the two are equivalent, is not for the Court to address and adjudicate. The issue exclusively lies in the domain of expertise of concerned academic experts. Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterating the arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge, submitted that the qualification of MBA has to be treated equivalent to the Masters in EAFM and thus, the appellant could not have been held ineligible to compete for appointment to the post of Lecturer in EAFM. Learned counsel submitted that the eligibility condition of NET/SET/Ph.D. and good acadmic record imposed by the respondents is also not in accordance with the norms of UGC.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. (Downloaded on 28/07/2021 at 09:33:14 PM)
(4 of 6) [SAW-1613/2018] 9. Indisputably, the eligibility qualification prescribed for
recruitment to the post of Lecturer in EAFM is Masters Degree in EAFM and the qualification of NET/SLET/SET or Ph.D. in the concerned subject. Admittedly, the appellant does not possess the qualification as prescribed rather, he claims that the qualification of MBA acquired by him should be considered equivalent to Post Graduation in EAFM.
10. It is well settled that it is the prerogative of the State as employer to prescribe the eligibility qualification for recruitment to any post. It is not within the domain of the Court to read something in the statutory qualification prescribed, which is not there and expand the eligibility qualification prescribed or to prescribe a qualification different than the statutorily prescribed on the basis of possible intendment. Even, the candidate possessing the higher qualification cannot always claim that he satisfies the requirement of lower eligibility qualification prescribed for any post in service by the State as an employer, taking into consideration the functions to be discharged by the candidate to be appointed on the concerned post. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in holding that the matter with regard to the equivalence of qualification cannot be gone into by the Court and it is better left to be decided by academic experts qualified for the work.
11. Moreover, in the instant case, the eligibility qualification as precribed require Masters Degree in specific subjects and thus, the question of examining the issue of equivalence of the degree of MBA acquired by the appellant, does not arise for consideration.
12. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors.: (2019) 2 SCC 404, where the issue involved was whether (Downloaded on 28/07/2021 at 09:33:14 PM) (5 of 6) [SAW-1613/2018] the qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics & Communication would satisfy the requirement of prescribed eligibility qualification of Matriculation with ITI in Electric Trade, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, categorically held :
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK 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 pre-supposes 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 KK 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 of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment 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 of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.(Downloaded on 28/07/2021 at 09:33:14 PM)
(6 of 6) [SAW-1613/2018]
28. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad (supra), it can be safely concluded that a candidate for recruitment to any post must possess the requisite qualification statutorily prescribed and the Court exercising the power of judicial review cannot expand upon the ambit of prescribed qualification. The equivalence of qualification is in exclusive domain of the recruiting authority.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference by us in exercise of intra-Court appeal jurisdiction.
14. In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
ADITYA JOSHI /38
(Downloaded on 28/07/2021 at 09:33:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)