Jharkhand High Court
Bipin Kishore Kullu 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. 1293 of 2019
----------
Bipin Kishore Kullu ............ 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. Rakesh Kumar Roy, AC to GA-III For the JSSC : M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Advocates
----------
07/ 16.08.2023 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to appoint him to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher as the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration having declared qualified in all the events.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although appointment of the petitioner was to be made in Khadiya subject but his candidature was not considered despite the fact that the petitioner was bearing the Graduation degree with Khadiya as a subject, though optional, and History as Main subject.
4. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that in view of several judicial pronouncements, no appointment could have been made for the post in which a candidate was having the degree as optional subject
5. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, settled propositions of law and also in view of the admitted 2 fact that petitioner has passed Graduation with History as Main Subject and Khadiya as optional subject only, whereas the appointment was to be made for Khadiya 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 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.3
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 the case of not 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