Gujarat High Court
Kinjal Kunjan Bhatia vs State Of Gujarat on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4518 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KINJAL KUNJAN BHATIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR H PATHAK(5261) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - State
MR RC JANI(357) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner with the following main prayers :
"25(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of Certiorari as deemed fit to quash and set aside the letter dated 03.02.2018 and 09.03.2018 as both are Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined illegal and may further direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner qualified for Personal Interview for the post of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Class-I, and may further direct to take the Personal Interview of the Petitioner as per Advertisement dated 15.6.2016;
(c) Pending hearing of the present petition Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to immediately call the petitioner for Personal Interview for the post of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Class-I, and the result of the said Interview may be subject to the final outcome of the present petition;
(d) Pending hearing of the present petition Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Respondent NO. 2;
(dd) Amendment carried out as per
Court's order dated 22-03-2018;
Pending hearing of the present
petition Your Lordships be pleased to stay Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined the appointment procedure of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Class-I, for the Advertisement No.GPSC/23/2016-17 dated 15.06.2016;"
2. The brief facts as per the petitioner are epitomised as under :
2.1. A public advertisement was issued by the recruiting authority for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Class-I) on 15.06.2016.
2.2. In the said advertisement, the educational qualification prescribed by the authorities is that the candidate shall possess ;
"17(i) at least a second class degree obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or any other educational institution recognized as such by the Government or declared as deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: or possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government, and, Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
(ii) a Master Degree in Social Work or Labour Welfare obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India, or any other educational institution recognized as such by the Government or declared as deemed to be University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: or possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government; and,"
2.3. The petitioner applied for the same knowing fully aware about the requisite educational qualification. 2.4. The authority had declared the final list for interview on 06.01.2018, whereby the petitioner was not included. Therefore, the petitioner has raised grievance before the authority concerned on 12.01.2018. 2.5. The interview schedule was declared by the authority on 29.01.2018.
2.6. The petitioner raised objection and protested against the revocation of her candidature for final interview on 01.02.2018.
Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 2.7. The Gujarat Public Service Commission ("The GPSC" for short) has replied to the petitioner on 03.02.2018. 2.8. The petitioner again wrote letters to the GPSC as well as other authorities regarding her grievance on 03.02.2018, 10.02.2018, 17.02.2018 and 20.02.2018. 2.9. In the meanwhile, on 15.02.2018, the General Administration Department sent all the papers of the petitioner to the Labour and Employment Department to resolve the issue of the petitioner.
2.10. The Labour and Employment Department has given negative opinion regarding the petitioner after taking into consideration the papers sent by the General Administration Department on 23.02.2018. 2.11. Final list of the candidates for interview was published by the authorities on 07.03.2018. 2.12. The authority concerned has rejected the request of the petitioner as per Rule 4(b)(ii) of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Class-I Recruitment Rules, 2011 that the degree of the petitioner is not considered as eligible as Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined requisite qualification on 09.03.2018. 2.13. Hence this petition.
3. Heard learned advocates. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal today.
4. It is noted that this Court has, vide order dated 27.03.2018 observed that "Any further process would be subject to further orders of this Court".
5. Learned advocate, Mr. Mihir Pathak for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities have failed to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner while rejecting the request of the petitioner by stating that since the qualification of the petitioner is not equivalent to the qualification as prescribed in Rule 4(b)(ii) of the Rules 2011, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered, and that the authority has failed to justify as to how the qualification of the petitioner is not equivalent to the MSW or MLW as required under the advertisement in question; and that neither in the Recruitment Rules nor in the advertisement, it was stated that the candidate of PGDHRM Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined will not be considered for the post in question and that the advertisement in question does not say that equivalent degree should be Master Degree only and/or it should be 2 years course only and that the authority did not consider the wider prospect of the Recruitment Rules; and that the provision of Rule 4(b)(i) categorically specifies the names of the Degree, whereas, in Recruitment Rules 2011, no such specific degree was stated and that it only says the candidate may possess equivalent degree, but there is no criteria framed to consider which will be the equivalent degree and that the State Government Recruitment Rules must consider Diploma as equivalent to the Master Degree and should consider the case of the petitioner at par with the Central Recruitment Rules; and that the intention of Legislature was clear while making the Rules of 2011 to the effect that it should be equivalent qualification and not be equivalent degree. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned advocate for Respondent No.2- GPSC has vehemently opposed this petition. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.2 and has submitted that on plain reading of the requirements, it would make it abundantly clear that the candidate is required to possess either the qualification prescribed or qualification which is declared to be equivalent Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined to the required qualification, which is recognised by the State Government; and that the present petitioner possesses the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resources Management which is neither the qualification prescribed nor declared akin nor equivalent to the required qualification by the State Government; and that looking to the certificate in question produced by the petitioner, the author of the certificate has mentioned that the course has many subjects similar to the syllabus of Master of Labour Welfare (Veer Narmada South Gujarat University); and that as such, the reasons for not inviting the petitioner for oral interview were communicated by the authorities to the petitioner by the communications dated 03.02.2018 and 09.03.2018, however, the petitioner could not submit any communication or declaration of the State Government that the course, undergone by the petitioner, is equivalent to the required qualification; and that the selection process is complete and the GPSC has already sent the recommendations to the Department of Labour and Employment vide communication dated 21.03.2018. It is submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
7. Learned AGP, Ms. Pooja Ashar for the State has submitted that the petitioner cannot claim equivalence of degrees dehors the rules. It is submitted that it is the recruiting authority who has decided the criteria as per its Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined requirements and none of the candidates, more particularly ineligible candidate, can claim a right for the post in question; and that it is the prerogative of the recruiting authority to decide the criteria and this Court has very limited scope to interfere in it, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. It is submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record including the affidavit-in-reply as well as the affidavit-in- rejoinder.
8.1. From the record, the following undisputed facts are noticed.
8.2. In the advertisement in question, the authority has clearly stated about the requisite educational qualification, i.e., more particularly a Master Degree in Social Work or Labour Welfare.
Undisputably, the petitioner possesses the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resources Management.
Inspite of the repeated reminders by the authorities, the petitioner could not submit any Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined communication or declaration of the State Government that the course, undergone by the petitioner, is equivalent to the required qualification.
8.3. From the facts stated above, submissions canvassed, averments made and the undisputed facts noted above, this Court finds that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification as per the advertisement for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Class-I) in question. The authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Every recruitment process is an individual process and cannot be compared with any other process either of the State Government or of the Central Government.
9. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajid Khan versus L. Rahmathullah reported in MANU/SC/0247/2025, more particularly Paras : 18 to 21 thereof, which read as under.
"18. In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the appellants and there is no apparent or glaring difference Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined in the qualifications, we see no reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence. This Court has stated the same in categorical terms in its decision Anand Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 390. :
32. We may also notice another important aspect i.e. the employer ultimately being the best judge of who should be appointed. The choice was of Respondent 2 who sought the assistance of an expert committee in view of the representation of some of the appellants.
The eminence of the expert committee is apparent from its composition. That committee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand taken by the appellants, and Respondent 2 as employer decided to concur with the same and accepted the committee's opinion. It is really not for the appellants or the contesting respondent to contend how and in what manner a degree should be obtained, which would Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined make them eligible for appointment by Respondent 2. (emphasis supplied)
19. The recruiting authority has scrutinised the qualifications before deciding that they satisfy what is enumerated in the advertisement. It is not the case of the respondents that the authority in the present case has not applied its mind in scrutinising the appellants diplomas. In Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86. this Court had an occasion to consider the approach to be adopted by the recruiting agency/employer while considering the issue of equivalence of qualifications and directed as under:
59. The equivalence of qualification as claimed by a candidate is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer. It is the recruiting agency which has to be satisfied as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of qualification is fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for the Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined job. It is the recruiting agency who is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate as to whether a candidate is eligible and entitled to participate in the selection.
More so when the advertisement clearly contemplates that certificate concerning the qualification shall be scrutinised, it was the duty and obligation of the recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or self-declaration by a candidate that his computer qualification is equivalent to CCC has neither been envisaged in the advertisement nor can be said to be fulfilling the eligibility condition. (emphasis supplied)
20. Similarly, in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362. it was held that :
9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
21. Though there a number of decisions on this very principle, Mohd Shujat Ali v. Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76; Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 (2) SCC 55; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 . we will conclude with a recent decision of this Court in Union of India v Uzair Imran, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308 . emphasizing the restraint a court must exercise while determining equivalence between qualifications. The relevant portion is as under :
14. Normally, it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular certificate and say, on the basis of its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received from interested candidates or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to participate in the selection process. It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence. (emphasis supplied)"
9.1. It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hiteshbhai Bhikhabhai Vyas versus State of Gujarat reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Guj. 4883, more particularly, para : 10 thereof, which reads as under :
"10. In catena of decisions, the Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that employer has absolute discretion to prescribe the required educational qualification and experience to ensure selection of suitable candidates. Court is having limited scope of judicial review when Government policy or administrative action is under challenge, as court is not the appellate authority and the Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined Constitution does not permit the court to interfere in matters of policy unless and until one or the other legal or fundamental right of the citizen is violated. It is always open to the recruiting agency to prescribe eligibility criteria."
9.2. It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV versus Union of India reported in (2023) 18 SCC 546, more particularly para : 7 thereof, which reads as under.
"7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors, (2019) 2 SCC 404 it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined recruiting authority, to determine.
(Emphasis supplied)"
9.3. It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shifana P.S. versus The State of Kerala reported in 2024 INSC 580, more particularly para : 14 thereof, which reads as under.
"14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the 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. (emphasis supplied) "
10. From the above referred judgments, it is clear that the equivalence of qualification is not a matter that can be Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined determined by the Courts. It is for the recruiting authority to determine whether a particular qualification can be regarded as equivalent or not. In the case on hand, the requirements prescribe that the candidate should possess either the qualification prescribed or qualification which is declared to be equivalent to the required qualification, which is recognised by the State Government and the qualification of the petitioner is neither the qualification prescribed nor declared akin nor equivalent to the required qualification by the State Government. Further, the petitioner has failed to submit any communication or declaration to show that the qualification, which she is possessing, is equivalent qualification to the required qualification.
11. For the reasons recorded above, this petition needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SYED SHAHANAZ Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:13:02 IST 2025