Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Arti Sharma D/O Babu Lal Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 14 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 644/2021
Arti Sharma D/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Plot No. 69, Friends Colony, Govindpura-Niwaru Link Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education
Secretary, Government Secretarait, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
4. Shikha Angira D/o Manvendra Sharma, Aged About 39
Years, R/o 22A, Bhagwan Path, Rail Nagar, Nirman Nagar,
Jaipur.
5. Raghvendra Mishra S/o Manoj Kumar Mishra, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Baiji Raj Ka Kund, Teek Ka Chowk Inside
Delhi Gate, Udaipur.
6. Shailesh Sharma S/o Satyadev Thakur, Aged About 41
Years, R/o 6 Ka 345, Shivaji Park, Alwar.
7. Bhanu Prasad Sharma S/o Dinesh Sharma, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Rati Ka Kua, Nar Naveen Dish House, Alwar.
8. Rakesh Buglalia S/o Amra Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village Ratanpur, Post Bhnchawa, Distt. Nagaur.
9. Gulshan Dumoliya, S/o Hemant Kumar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Nimuchana, Tehsil Bansur, District
Alwar.
10. Rohit Kumar S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Gurunanak Colony, Ward No. 16, Khairthal, Alwar.
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 595/2021 Veena Sidana D/o Ramesh Chander Sidana, Aged About 38 Years, R/o D-13, Ceeri Colony, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:10:53 PM)
(2 of 6) [SAW-644/2021]
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 642/2021 Mohit Rajoria S/o Suresh Kumar Rajoria, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Flat No. J-002, Pearl Green Acre Apartments, Near Somani Hospital, Shri Gopal Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 643/2021 Vinod Kumar S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 157, Shiv Vihar-C, Manyawar, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia with
Mr. Arpit Dotasara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG
Mr. Amit Lubhaya through VC
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:10:53 PM)
(3 of 6) [SAW-644/2021]
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment 14/12/2021 These appeals are filed by the original petitioners to challenge a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.07.2021. For convenience we have looked into the facts arising in Civil Writ Petition No.12823/2020 (Veena Sidana Vs. State of Rajasthan) out of which Special Appeal (Writ) No.595/2021 arises. The petitioner possesses the qualification of B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Bio-technology. The respondent authorities had issued an advertisement in the year 2018 for recruitment to the post of School Lecturer (Biology) (school education). The petitioner applied for the said post. After clearing the selection tests the petitioner was called for document verification. However the authorities rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground that she was not eligible for appointment to the post in question. The petitioner points out that in the advertisement the qualification prescribed was B.Ed. and post graduation or equivalent.
The petitioner thereupon approached the High Court. In the petition the petitioner had pointed out that the authorities had issued a similar advertisement of recruitment on 16.10.2015. During such recruitment process same question of equivalence of the qualifications held by the petitioner came up for consideration. A committee was therefore constituted by the State government for such purpose. The committee had given its report on 28.06.2017 and on the basis of which persons with similar qualifications were treated eligible and appointed. According to the (Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:10:53 PM) (4 of 6) [SAW-644/2021] petitioner thus the action of the State authorities in denying appointment to the petitioner was unlawful. The facts of other petitioners being similar, they are not recorded separately.
The State Government as well as the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) had appeared before the learned Single Judge and filed replies. The RPSC in its reply dated 18.01.2021 had pointed out that to consider the equivalence of the educational qualifications held by the petitioner and similarly situated other candidates the State Government had formed a committee which submitted its report on 09.08.2018. Copy of the report was annexed with the reply. This committee opined that the qualifications of M.Sc. in Life Sciences, M.Sc. Bio-Science, M.Sc. in Bio-Technology and M.Sc. in Micro-Biology courses and M.Sc. in Environmental Science and M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment are not equivalent for the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer (Biology). Reliance was placed on the decision of Constitution Bench in case of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. Vs. Aarya K Babu & Anr. (2019) 8 SCC 587 in support of the contention that the question of equivalence of qualifications must be left to be judged by the recruiting agency. It was additionally argued before us that the report of the previous committee dated 15.06.2017 was specific on the question of equivalence of the qualifications. While concluding that above noted qualifications are not equivalent to the eligibility prescribed for the post of Lecturer (Biology), it was recommended that for the recruitment process in question the candidates may be considered eligible but for the future the Government may form a new committee.
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:10:53 PM)
(5 of 6) [SAW-644/2021] The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners did not have the requisite qualification for the post in question as advertised. Further the question of equivalence had been examined by the expert committee constituted by the State government and lastly the report of the committee cannot be discarded lightly.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not think that the learned Single Judge had committed any error. It is undisputed that the qualifications prescribed as per the recruitment rules as advertised for the post in question was B.Sc. (Biology). Whether masters degree in subjects such as Micro-Biology, Bio-Technology etc. can be treated as equivalent or not, is essentially the task of State authorities who duly aided and advised by the experts in the field have the authority to take appropriate decision in this regard. It is settled through a series of judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters concerning technical and scientific issues the Court would not interfere lightly and overrule the discretion of the competent authority which has been taken after due consideration and on the basis of expert's advise. Unless such a decision is wholly arbitrary or suffers from factual or legal malafides, the judicial review would not permit the Court to interfere with such decision merely because another view is possible.
In this context the committee duly constituted by the State government had opined that the qualifications of masters degree in Bio-Technology, Bio-Science and Micro-Biology etc. cannot be treated as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed as per the rules and duly advertised.
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:10:53 PM)
(6 of 6) [SAW-644/2021] Reliance of the petitioner to the previous recruitment process and the report of the committee dated 15.06.2017 is of no use. The report itself suggested that such qualifications cannot be treated as equivalent. However for the present recruitment process the committee recommends treating the candidates as qualified. The committee also opined that a proper examination of equivalence should be carried out for the future recruitment. The government therefore formed a new committee in the year 2018 and accepted the recommendations of the committee to the effect that such qualifications cannot be treated as equivalent, the same suffers from no illegality. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the committee was formed and decision is taken after the recruitment had begun also would not carry the case of the petitioner any further. Minus such exercise in any case the qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules and advertised was B.Sc. (Biology). The petitioners do not possess this qualification and therefore the question of equivalence arises. Unless the qualifications held by the petitioners are treated as equivalent, they would not be eligible in any case.
In the result we find no merits in the appeals, the appeals are dismissed.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
B.M.Gandhi/F.R.Bohra/20-23
(Downloaded on 18/12/2021 at 09:10:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)