Allahabad High Court
Deepesh Singh And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ALL 3045
Bench: Dilip B. Bhosale, Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9605 of 2018 Petitioner :- Deepesh Singh And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Goel, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent.
The writ petition is being decided without calling for counter affidavit on the consent of the parties.
The instant writ petition raises challenge to clause 18 of Rule 8 of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Services (4th Amendment) Rules, 20161, being arbitrary, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India, insofar the rule does not prescribe B.Tech (Information Technology)2 as equivalent qualification to B.Tech (Computer Science)3 for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Computer). Consequently, the advertisement is also challenged to that extent and a direction has been sought to the respondents that selection to the post of Assistant Teacher (Computer) be made prescribing B.Tech (IT) as a qualification.
The Governor in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, made the Amendment Rules 2016 with a view to amending the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Services Rules, 19834. Rule 8 provides that a candidate for direct recruitment to the various post in the service must possess the qualifications prescribed or specified by the Government from time to time. Clause 18 of Rule 8 provides the qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Computer) which reads thus:
18Assistant Teacher (Men/Women) Computer (I) B.Tech./B.E. (in Computer Science) from a recognized University in India.
Or B.Sc. in Computer Science, Or B.Sc. in Computer Application Or Bachelor of Computer Application, Or Bachelor's degree with 'A' level course from NIELT.
(ii) B.Ed or equivalent degree from a recognized University in India.
The U.P. Public Service Commission5 issued an Advertisement (No. A-1/E-1/2018) on 15 March 2018 inviting applications for Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduates Grade) (Men/Women Branch) Examination-2018, inter alia, for 1673 posts of Assistant Teacher (Computer) for appointment in Government Inter Colleges. The teachers appointed will have to teach students of class 9 and 10. The petitioners are B.Tech. (I.T.), in other words, they are not eligible in terms of the qualifications prescribed by the impugned Clause 18 of Rule 8.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that B.Tech (I.T.) is equivalent to B.Tech/B.E (CS); the Amendment Rules 2016 by not incorporating B.Tech (I.T.) qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Computer) is discriminatory. It is further contended that the students of B.Tech. (I.T.) and B.Tech/B.E. (CS) have papers in common as is reflected from the marksheets of 1st to 8th semester of both the courses. Further, it is urged that different recruitment agencies making selection for the post of Assistant Teacher (Computer) have included B.Tech. (I.T.) as a qualification. In other words, it is contended that B.Tech (IT) is equivalent to that of B.Tech. (CS).
Sri A.K. Goel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submits that the qualifications have been fixed having due regard to the syllabus to be taught to class 9 and 10 students. Further, B.Tech (I.T.) and B.Tech. (CS) are entirely different and distinct courses, therefore, cannot be treated as being equivalent merely for the reason that some papers are common in both the course. IT Professionals are required to install computer system using software and maintain networks and databases, whereas, Computer Scientists enjoy mathematics and software design. In general, the relationship between Information Technology and Computer Science though may appear to be quite close and interdependent but the difference between the two are quite pronounced.
The issue that arises for our consideration, in the facts of the instant case, is whether qualification of B.Tech (IT) possessed by the petitioners can be treated as equivalent to the notified qualification i.e. (B.Tech/BE(CS) Prescription of qualification or equivalency of qualification is under the domain of the executive that too by the experts in the field. It is not for the Court to interfere in such like matters. It is not mere equivalence that is enough. It must also be recognized as equivalent. In Director of AIIMS vs. Nikhil Tandon6, the Supreme court observed as follows:
"We are of the opinion that the two years' training at Cambridge University undergone by Tandon while working for the Ph.D. cannot be treated as a qualification recognised as equivalent to DM. Schedule I to the AIIMS Recruitment Rules speaks of DM qualification or a qualification recognised as equivalent. It is not mere equivalence that is enough. It must also be recognised as equivalent.
... Recognition must be by a general order/ proceeding published for the information of all concerned. It cannot be a matter decided in a given case for the purpose of that case."
There is another reason for not accepting the contention, as recognition of equivalence has to be by a general order/proceeding published for the information of all concerned, and it could not be a matter to be decided in a given case because the other candidates who are also having the degree, which the petitioners possess may be deprived of the right of consideration who may not have applied for the post in question. It may amount to discrimination and curtail their right for seeking appointment.
In Mohammad Shujat Ali and others Versus Union of India and others7, the Court observed that only where the decision on equivalence is shown to be based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations the court would reach out its lethal arm and strike down the decision.
It is not being disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that the degree awarded by the University or Technical colleges in B.Tech (IT) and B.Tech (CS) is distinct and different. On specific query learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to show from the material brought on record that any expert committee has rendered decision on equivalence of the two courses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Ms. Nisha Versus Union of India and others8, where the Court was considering the equivalence of various degrees for appointment by the Indian Army on various posts. After obtaining expert opinion from AICTE and taking note of the fact that the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force treated B.Tech. (Electrical and Electronics) equivalent to B.Tech. (Electrical), Court was of the opinion that there is complete identity in the course curriculum of the degrees of B.Tech, including B.Tech (IT) and B.Tech (CS), however, in paragraph 30, the Court directed as follows:
"30. We have highlighted in our interim orders as also in para 7 above that commensurate to the needs of the growing industry one finds a perceptible shift from the hithertofore regimented courses to inter- disciplinary courses; having mixed and merges subjects. A large number of writ petitions are being filed on the subject of equivalence. Our experience in the instant writ petitions of seeking expert opinion first from the Association of the Indian Universities and then from the All Council for Technical Education has left us saddened and without any guidance. Accordingly we direct that a copy of this decision would be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development with a direction that the Government of India would constitute a committee of experts in the field of technical education which would gather the course curriculum of all the technical degrees recognized by the UGC and would accord equivalence which would be displayed on the website of UGC, AICTE and the Ministry of Human Resources Development."
The decision of the Delhi High Court would not help the petitioners in the facts of the instant case, as the petitioners have not placed any material on record to show that any expert committee was constituted and has gone into the issue of equivalence. We have stated hereinbefore that mere equivalence is not enough, it must be recognized as equivalent and the recognition must come from experts on the subject and not by Court. It is no doubt true that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down to adopt a different qualification, it is a matter of policy and the sole prerogative of the rule making authority.
In Jyoti K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and others9, the Supreme Court held that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post.
Similarly in P.M. Latha and another vs. State of Kerala and others10, Supreme Court held as follows:
"We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of the appellants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teacher's Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. BEd degree-holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or BEd qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed...."
In Yogesh Kumar and others vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others11, Supreme Court held that one degree cannot be compared with another degree merely for the reason that one can earn promotion to the post prescribing higher qualification.
"...A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding BEd degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which BEd is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that BEd is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification, the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with BEd degree qualification and the latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former."
We need not note various decisions on the points where the Courts have held that the matter pertaining to the equivalence being an area of expert opinion should be left to the experts and Courts should not indulge in voyagerism. Mere equivalence is not enough it must be recognised as such. No such expert opinion or decision has been placed before us to support the contention of the petitioner that the degree offered in B.Tech (IT) and B.Tech (CS) is equivalent.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.4.2018
K.K. Maurya
(Suneet Kumar,J.) (Dilip B. Bhosale,CJ)