Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surekha Rana vs Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial ... on 9 February, 2021
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 219/2020
Surekha Rana D/o Shri Virendra Singh Rana, Aged About 33
Years, By Caste- Rajput, R/o House Number-44-A/2, Golden
Park, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala (Harayana).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection
Board, Durgapura, Jaipur. Through its Chairman.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Piyush Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
Mr. Deepak Jangid for Mr.Hemant
Choudhary, Government Counsel
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Judgment 9th February, 2021 Reportable PER HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.
1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 22.1.20 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying her appointment on the post of Physical Training Instruction ('PTI') Gr.III, has been dismissed.
2. The respondent-Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board ('the Selection Board') issued an advertisement dated 4.5.18 inviting applications for appointment on the posts of PTI Gr.III. The eligibility qualification for recruitment to the post as mentioned in the advertisement reads as under:
(Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 09:29:14 PM)
(2 of 7) [SAW-219/2020] "(i) jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk esa Lukrd ¼ch-ih-,M-½ ;k 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk esa izek.k i= ¼lh-ih-,M-½ ;k 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk esa fMIyksek ¼Mh-ih-,M-½
(ii) nsoukxjh fyfi esa fy[kh fgUnh esa dk;Z djus dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk KkuA "
3. Admittedly, the appellant was not holding the qualification of B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed. However, she was holding the qualification of Post Graduation in Physical Education (M.P.Ed.).
4. As a matter of fact, the appellant, a Graduate in Arts, was admitted to M.P.Ed. Course by the Kurukshetra University, having participated in Common Wealth Games, 2006 and other National Level Championships as Gymnast.
5. The appellant applied for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.III pursuant to the advertisement issued as aforesaid; appeared in the examination and cleared it. The appellant though selected, was not accorded appointment inasmuch as, at the time of documents verification, the respondents found that she does not have requisite qualification.
6. Precisely, the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that she is possessing a higher qualification i.e. M.P.Ed. and therefore, her candidature could not have been rejected.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the appellant did not study the subjects, such as, Principle and History of Physical Education, Psychology in Physical Education, Anatomy, Yoga Education, Athletics (Track Events) and Knowledge of other games whereas, Physical Training Instructor who is supposed to instruct students at Primary School level is required to give basic training to the students in relation to variety of sports, including Yoga and routine exercise etc. Learned counsel submitted that a (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 09:29:14 PM) (3 of 7) [SAW-219/2020] bare look at the syllabus of M.P.Ed. placed on record makes it abundantly clear that the appellant studied above subject as well. Learned counsel submitted that M.P.Ed. is certainly a higher qualification and therefore, the appellant could not have been denied appointment. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: (2012) 3 SCC 129. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has also erred in observing that there is no material on record to satisfy the Court as to under which provision the appellant was admitted to Post Graduation Course in Physical Education. The degree of M.P.Ed. acquired by the appellant is not doubted by the respondents and her candidature has not been rejected on this count, rather, the appellant has been denied appointment on the ground that she does not possess the requisite qualification prescribed i.e. B.P.Ed./ C.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. Thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that in absence of certificate issued by Director of Sports for the State Government, the appellant's Post Graduation cannot be considered in place of Graduation in Physical Education. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was admitted to the Post Graduation Course in Physical Education inasmuch as, she participated in International Level Tournament and won First, Second and Third Rank in the sports. The appellant was admitted to the course as per the qualification prescribed by the Kurukshetra University for admission to the course of the candidates who have participated in the sports event at International Level and secured first, second or third rank. In this view of the matter, the denial of the appointment to the appellant (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 09:29:14 PM) (4 of 7) [SAW-219/2020] on the premise that she does not possess the qualification prescribed, is absolutely unjustified.
8. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge, submitted that the subjects pursued by the appellant in her Post Graduation do not equip her enough to guide and teach the students at the school level. Learned counsel submitted that the subjects which are taught in Post Graduation are entirely different compared to the subjects which are taught at the Graduation level and thus, the appellant may be having special knowledge of the subjects taught at the Post Graduation level but the same do not fulfill the requirement of the post of PTI Gr.III, who is supposed to instruct the students at the primary school level. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the appellant is Graduate in Arts and thus, having not studied subjects of Physical Education in Graduation, straightaway the qualification of M.P.Ed. acquired cannot be considered a higher qualification so as to satisfy the requirement of qualification as prescribed for recruitment to the post of PTI. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Anita & Ors.: 2015 (2) SCC 170.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
10. Indisputably, the eligibility qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of PTI Gr.III is B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. It is pertinent to note that the qualification prescribed is specific and any other qualification equivalent to B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. is not included in the eligibility qualification. Thus, apparently, the candidature of the appellant is not considered inasmuch as, she (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 09:29:14 PM) (5 of 7) [SAW-219/2020] lacks the eligibility qualification and not for the reason that the qualification of M.P.Ed. is not treated to be equivalent to the qualification prescribed.
11. In Chandrakala Trivedi's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, the Supreme Court while dealing the issue regarding the higher qualification being not treated substitute for the eligibility qualification prescribed, observed :
"In the instant case, we fail to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to the extent that it does not consider higher qualification as equivalent to the qualification of passing Senior Secondary examination even in respect of a candidate who was provisionally selected. The word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonably meaning. By using the expression, 'equivalent' one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact."
12. As noticed above, in the instant case, the qualification prescribed being specific, the question of treating the higher qualification as equivalent, does not arise. It is not within the domain of this Court to permit inclusion of any qualification other than the eligibility qualification prescribed under the statutory rules.
13. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors.: (2019) 2 SCC 404, wherein the qualification prescribed was Matriculation with ITI in Electric Trade and the appellants therein were not possessing ITI Certificate but were Diploma Holder in Electric Engineering/Electronics & Communication, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering earlier decisions of the Court including the decision in Anita's case (supra), 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 (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 09:29:14 PM) (6 of 7) [SAW-219/2020] 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.
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)
14. Generally, the higher qualification pre-supposes the acquisition of lower qualification in the subject prescribed and (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 09:29:14 PM) (7 of 7) [SAW-219/2020] therefore, the higher qualification may be treated to fulfill the requirement of eligibility of lower qualification. But in the instant case, where the specific qualification prescribed is found to be relevant for the purpose of discharging functions of the post i.e. to instruct the students of Primary School level in the specific subjects relating to Physical Education, the appellant who has straightaway acquired the qualification of M.P.Ed. coming from a different channel i.e. Graduation in Arts, cannot be considered suitable for discharging functions of the post of PTI Gr.III.
15. It is true that there is no material on record on the basis of which the genuineness of the degree of M.P.Ed. obtained by the appellant can be doubted but then, the said degree in no manner fulfills the requirement of the eligibility qualification as prescribed. It goes without saying that specific eligibility qualification as aforesaid has been prescribed in the relevant rules taking into consideration the functions to be discharged by the persons holding the post of PTI Gr.III and therefore, this Court cannot proceed with the assumption that the M.P.Ed. being a higher qualification in Physical Education, it fulfills the requirement of lower qualification as prescribed.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of intra-Court appeal jurisdiction.
17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 09:29:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)