Jharkhand High Court
Vincent Bhengra vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2023
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 1327 of 2019
----------
Vincent Bhengra ............ Petitioner Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.
............ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, AC to SC For the JSSC : M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Advocates
----------
06/ 16.08.2023 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 11.02.2019 by which the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher has been rejected on the ground that petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause- 4 (kha) of the Advertisement.
Further prayer has been made by the petitioner for direction upon the respondents to appoint him to the post of Assistant Teacher as he comes within the zone of consideration having qualified in all the events of examination.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Advertisement, the appointment was to be made in the subject of English but the petitioner was having the degree of B.A. Hons in Functional English.
4. Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that in view of several judicial 2 pronouncements, appointment could not be made to the post in which a candidate having the degree in a subject other than the subject specified in the advertisement.
5. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, settled propositions of law and further in view of the admitted fact that petitioner has passed B.A. Hons. with Functional English where the appointment was to be made for the subject of English language, rightly the case of the petitioner was not considered.
6. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 4079 of 2018 (Santosh Kumar Yadav and another Vrs. the State of Jharkhand and others) and other analogous cases, disposed of on 20.09.2019, which has been affirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in case of Indresh Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 42. This Court in the aforesaid case has held as under::
"28. It is well settled law that the question of equivalence of educational qualification is not within the domain and jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, it has to be done by a body of academicians or an expert body qualified for that job, as such, this Court cannot consider and hold one educational qualification to be equivalent to other qualifications. In this respect, in umpteen number of cases the Supreme Court has observed that it is not within the scope of judicial review to draw equivalence of qualification. Drawing of equivalence of qualification is essentially the job of experts of the field and it is not for the Court to enter into the arena of comparing two qualifications on certain parameters and then to declare equivalence.
29. I am in agreement with the submission on behalf of learned counsel appearing for JSSC as well as State Counsel that the nomenclature of the two courses being different there has to be difference in the nature of study and knowledge imparted in the two disciplines, course content, qualifications acquired 3 etc. It is not open for the Court in academic matters to declare equivalence of courses as may have been advertised by the employer. Concludingly, equivalence of educational qualification is purely a technical academic matter and it has to be done by appropriate authority/expert that too by specific order duly published prior to initiation of recruitment process.
30. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in action of the respondents in holding the petitioners ineligible for the concerned posts. I do not find any interference is warranted in the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed."
7. In absence of having the requisite qualification as per the rules, rightly the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and at this stage, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal