Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Kumar Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2010
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No : 8662 of 2009
Arvind Kumar Jatav & Others
- V/s -
State of MP and others.
Writ Petition No : 9957 of 2009
Om Prakash Waskale & Others
- V/s -
State of MP and others
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In both the cases:
Shri Saurabh Tiwari for the petitioners.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for State.
Shri P.N. Dubey for respondent No.2.
Shri G.P. Kekre for respondent No.3.
Shri V.K. Shukla for respondent No.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.
ORDER
06/09/2010 As common questions are involved in both these petitions, they are being heard analogously. Records relating to Writ Petition No.8662/2009 are being referred to in this order.
2- Challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for appointment in the establishment of respondent No.3, on the post Seed Certification Officers and rejecting the claim of the petitioners, this petition has been filed.
23- It is the case of the petitioners that they hold a Post Graduate Degree in Agriculture Botany, now known as 'Plant Psychology'. The degree is granted to them by Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'JNKVV'), which is a creation of the Statute. Respondent No.2 provides specialized education and research work in various fields of Agricultural Science. The University is providing Bachelors' and Masters' Degree in various fields of Agricultural Sciences and the same is done under the supervision of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi and other specialized organization.
4- Initially upto the year 1990-91 the Degree in question granted was known as MSc (Agricultural Botany) and the students passing out were conferred the aforesaid Post Graduate Degree. However, later on in a meeting held on 14.2.1991, the Board of Management changed the nomenclature of the Department of Botany and renamed it as 'Department of Agricultural Botany and Crop Physiology', vide Annexure P/1 dated 11.4.1991. Subsequently, the nomenclature was again changed in the 159th Meeting held on 13.4.2000 the 'Department of Botany and Crop Physiology' was changed to that of 'Plant Physiology' vide Annexure P/2 on 9.5.2000 and this amendment was made effective in the academic session 2000-2001. Again, in the 178th Meeting held on 29.1.2007, the Board of Management changed the nomenclature to 'Plant Physiology to Crop & Herbal Physiology', in the academic session 2006-2007, vide Notification dated 27.2.2007 - Annexure P/3. This nomenclature was again changed to 'Medicinal and Aromatic Plants', in the academic session 2006-2007 vide Notification dated 25.2.2009. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners that the original degree and the Department of Agricultural Botany underwent the changes as indicated hereinabove upto the year 2006-2007, and when the petitioners were granted the degree they were granted the Degree in Masters of Agriculture (Plant Physiology) vide documents filed with the petition, which is not in dispute.
35- According to the petitioners the Degree of Plant Physiology granted to them is the same as a Degree of Agricultural Botany. It is their case that the University itself has indicated that the Degree is the same as it originally stood in the year 1991, the course and the syllabus are the same and except for change of the nomenclature, there is no other change in the course of study or the syllabus. The MP Seed Authority initiated a process for appointment of 112 Assistant Seed Certification Officers and for the said purpose appointed M.P. Professional Examination Board (Vyapam), respondent No.4 as the examining body. The Rules for appointment to the said post is M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha Ke Karamchariyon Ki Sewa Bharti Niyam, 1990
- Annexure R-4/3 and according to the educational qualification prescribed a candidate should be a Post Graduate in one of the subject namely (a) Plant Breeding and Genetics (b) Agricultural Botany (c) Agronomy, from any recognized Agriculture University. It is not in dispute that the advertisement was issued, petitioner submitted their candidature and pointed out that they are Post Graduate in Agriculture Botany and, therefore, they are entitled to be appointed to the post. They appeared in the written test, have fared well and when the interview was to be held they were held disqualified on the ground that the Post Graduate Degree in Plant Physiology held by the petitioners is not a Degree in Agriculture Botany and, therefore, their candidatures were rejected. Petitioners represented against the same and the University communicated to the respondents vide Annexure P/10 on 26.6.09, to the effect that the Degree, which was awarded to the petitioners known as Plant Physiology, was originally known as Agriculture Botany and gave the particulars and changes made in the nomenclature of the Department and the Degree and pointed out that the petitioners were eligible. Even when the aforesaid request was not considered, petitioners filed this writ petition and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court petitioners were permitted to participate in the interview, they have participated but their results have not been declared.
46- Taking me through the resolutions passed by the Board of Management of JNKVV, as contained in Annexures P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/4, the Degrees of the petitioners and the communication and clarification made by the University on 26.9.09 vide Annexure P/10, Shri Saurabh Tiwari argued that the petitioners are qualified to seek appointment to the post and in an illegal and arbitrary manner, respondents are rejecting their candidature. Emphasizing that the Degree held by the petitioners has only undergone change in the nomenclature and there is no difference in the syllabus and the course of study, petitioners seek for interference into the matter. 7- Respondents 1 and 3 have filed reply. As far as respondent No.3 is concerned, they have only stated that under the Recruitment Rules of 1968, the educational qualification is shown as Degree in Agricultural Botany and as the petitioners possess Degree in Plant Physiology, it is stated that they do not fulfil the requisite educational qualifications. However, in paragraph 11 of the reply, respondent No.3 has made the following averments:
"11. That the answering respondents most humbly submit that if they receive an official communication from the respondent No.2 and the State Government that Agricultural Botany, Agriculture Botany & Crop Physiology, Plant Physiology, Crop and Herbal Physiology and Medicinal and Aromatic Plants are one and the same subject and the same have to be treated at par, necessary amendments shall be made in the recruitment Rules and subsequently whenever the vacancy shall arise the instant contingency shall be taken care of."
(Emphasis supplied) It is stated that if the State Government accepts the same, they have no objection.
8- The M.P. Professional Examination Board has also filed a separate reply on the same lines and they contend that till the recruitment 5 rules are not amended and the subject of Degree of Plant Physiology incorporated, petitioners cannot be permitted to participate. 9- Respondent No.2 JNKVV has filed a separate reply and it is stated that the petitioners are holders of Masters Degree in Agriculture Plant Physiology, which is nothing but a Degree equivalent to Agricultural Botany. They have indicated the change of nomenclature made and it is pointed out that the syllabus, course of study and all the other requirements for obtaining a Degree in Agricultural Botany is the same for obtaining a Degree in Agriculture Plant Physiology and it is the contention of the University that the cases of the petitioners have been improperly rejected.
10- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the only reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioners are that they do not hold the requisite qualification. The question is as to whether the qualification held by the petitioners is the same as prescribed or not? 11- If the Notifications filed by the petitioners are seen, it would be evident from Annexure P/1 that initially in the year 1991 the course of study, the degree and the department was known as Agricultural Botany. It was in the academic session 1991-92, in the 123rd Meeting, that the nomenclature was changed from Agricultural Botany to Agricultural Botany & Crop Physiology. The recruitment rule under which the process of recruitment is being initiated is of the year 1968 and rightly so. Prior to 1968 the classification for the post in question was indicated as Agricultural Botany in conformity with the Degree that was being granted by the University in the year 1968. The Rules continued to remain the same whereas the University changed the nomenclature of the Department and the Degree first from Agricultural Botany to Agricultural Botany & Crop Physiology, then to Plant Physiology, then to Crop & Herbal Physiology and finally on 25.2.2009, vide Annexure P/4 to Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. It is seen from the scrutiny of the records that except for changing the nomenclature of the subject, department and the course initially from Agricultural Botany 6 prior to 1999 to Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, in the year 2009, there is no change in the course and syllabus or any other matter concerning the course of study. Respondents also have not brought anything on record to indicate that the change of the nomenclature has also affected the course, its syllabus and the manner in which the Degree is granted. Respondents only contend that the course is not in accordance to the nomenclature in the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, petitioners are not entitled. This attitude of the respondents is not correct. When the Recruitment Rules initially indicated the Degree in accordance to the nomenclature then existing and as notified by the University, and when consequently the nomenclature of the Department and the course was changed by the University in accordance to the statutory rules, an assumption has to be drawn that the Recruitment Rules is deemed to be amended to that effect. It was for the Government to amend the Recruitment Rules and bring it at par with the requirement of the Degree being conferred or granted by the University. By merely sticking to the same nomenclature that was existing in the year 1968 and by refusing to accept the change of nomenclature of the department and the degree brought into effect by the University, due to certain factors the State Government is acting in an arbitrary manner.
12- When the State Government has denied the benefit to the petitioners except for making the objection as indicated hereinabove, nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to show that the Degree or Plant Physiology obtained by the petitioners is not a Degree of Agricultural Botany, as indicated in the Recruitment Rules. On the contrary, the Notifications of the University and the orders of the Board of Management as indicated hereinabove, read alongwith the affidavit of the University clearly indicates that the Course and the Degree conferred on the petitioners is the same, which was initially known as Agricultural Botany, there is no change in the syllabus or the course of study or the manner in which the Degree is granted. It is, therefore, a case where even though the petitioners are qualified and are entitled to participate in the process of selection, they are being denied the same on 7 considerations, which are neither logical, justified nor in accordance to the requirement of the current trends and development, in the course of study. It is a case where the respondents without any justification are refusing to recognize petitioners' entitlement to participate in the process of selection. This Court on a close scrutiny of the material available on record, particularly the Notifications issued by the University, the affidavit of the University and other documents, is convinced that the Degree, which was initially being granted by the University, was known as Agricultural Botany, it underwent the changes as indicated hereinabove and the Degree which the petitioners received from the University i.e... Plant Physiology is the same Degree, which was initially known as Agricultural Botany and which is stipulated in the Recruitment Rules. There is no reason for not holding that the petitioners are qualified and possess the qualifications required under the Recruitment Rules. Merely because the Rule is not updated to bring it at par with the changes made by the Technical Experts (the University) in the course of study and the nomenclature of the Degree, the claim of the petitioners cannot be out rightly rejected. It was for the Department, the Government and respondent No.2 to make amendments in the Rules and bring it at par with the nomenclature notified by the University. 13- It is common ground that in Madhya Pradesh, for a long period of time it was only the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, which was conducting the course of studies in agricultural sciences, they are the experts in the field and there is no reason for not accepting the contentions put forth by the said University. The State Government and respondent No.2 have not brought to the notice of this Court any opinion, report or any other material of any expert authorities or body to take a different view from the one, which is being canvassed by Respondent No.3 University and the petitioners. 14- Accordingly, finding the action of the respondents to be wholly unsustainable, unreasonable and unjustified, both the writ petitions are allowed. It is held that the petitioners hold the appropriate qualification, necessary for appointment to the post of Assistant Seed 8 Certification Officers and their candidature at the stage of interview has been arbitrarily and illegally rejected, which is unsustainable and, therefore, quashed. Holding the petitioners to be eligible for seeking appointment and taking note of the fact that they have already appeared and participated in the process of interview, respondents are directed to declare the results of the petitioners forthwith and on the basis of the same, in accordance to their merit, grant them appointment in case they come within the merit consideration, for appointment to the post in question, with all consequential benefits.
15- Necessary action for implementing the same be undertaken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
16- Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.
( RAJENDRA MENON ) JUDGE Aks/-