Gujarat High Court
Jitendrakumar Kashiram Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 20 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1283 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JITENDRAKUMAR KASHIRAM PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR JAY J JANI(9303) for the Petitioner
MS POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent No. 1 - State
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent No. 2 - GPSC
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Respondent No. 3 - Private Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 20/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers.
"12. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of quo warranto or mandamus or Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined any other writ, direction or order -
A. quashing and setting aside the
appointment order dated 24.08.2009 of the
respondent No.3 to the post of Joint Director, Horticulture and instead appoint the petitioner on that post from 24.08.2009 with all the consequential benefits;
B. during the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 may be restrained from confirming the respondent No.3 on the post of Joint Director of Horticulture;"
2. Heard learned advocates.
3.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Jay J. Jani for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.3 does not possess the degree in Horticulture nor does he possess about seven years' experience in Horticulture; and that on perusal of the degree of respondent No.3 would go to show that respondent No.3 possesses the degree of Master of Science (Agriculture), whereas, as the degree of the petitioner would show the degree of Master of Science in Horticulture; and that Agriculture and Horticulture are two different and distinct departments and the degree obtained in Agriculture of one Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined cannot be utilized for Horticulture; and that respondent No.3 being ineligible for the appointment so far as the possessing of degree is concerned; and that therefore, his appointment is liable to be quashed and set aside; and that he had no right to hold a public post; and that since the petitioner possesses the legal and valid degree, he is eligible for the post in question and accordingly, he was placed in the waiting list; and that so far as the experience is concerned, the respondent No.3 also does not fulfill the same as required by the Joint Director (Horticulture), Class-I, Recruitment Rules, 1997 ('the Rules, 1997' for short); and that respondent No.3 does not possess any experience concerning the Horticulture as the experience of respondent No.3 was of the Agriculture only; and that respondent No.3 has produced many certificates of experience issued by the various authorities during the period from 16.12.1996 2 29.08.2007 in the earlier petition being Special Civil Application No.8135 of 2009, but none of the certificates pertaining to Horticulture field; and that the job charts of the persons working in the Agriculture field and the Horticulture field are different having different duties and functions; and that besides the various certificates being contrary or to be ignored by the authorities; and that once respondent No.3 was appointed as Agricultural Officer, he was not expected to do the duties of Horticultural Officer and even assuming that he had done so, that was illegal and Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined invalid experience; and that the petitioner possesses the experience of Horticulture only which was also approved by the Gujarat Public Service Commission ('the GPSC' for short) as well as State Government; and that the petitioner has earlier filed Special Civil Application No.8135 of 2009 before this Court against the very respondents which was withdrawn by the petitioner with a view to challenge the appointment of respondent No.3 vide order dated 25.11.2009. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed. 3.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions.
(i) (2024) 8 SCC 309 - Shifana P.S. versus State of Kerala
(ii) (2023) 18 SCC 546 - Unnikrishnan C V versus Union of India
(iii) (2019) 8 SCC 587 - Zonal Manager, Bank of India versus Aarya K. Babu
(iv) (2009) 4 SCC 555 - Mohd. Sohrab Khan versus Aligarh Muslim University
4.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for the contesting respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed this petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.3 and has raised Page 4 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner who is himself not eligible for the post in question. He has submitted that as per Rule 8(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, the period of practical experience is to be computed from the date on which requisite qualifications are obtained, with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of such application; and that even if it is assumed that the petitioner had gained any experience in Horticulture, thereafter even then such experience for the period from 28.01.2003 to 05.01.2007 (last date for submission of application) comes to only 3 years 11 months and 8 days, therefore, the petitioner is not possessing the requisite experience of seven years as required by the Recruitment Rules and by the advertisement. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of K.V. Garasiya versus Babubhai N. Gavit reported in 1999 (1) GLR 229 (DB). He has further submitted that the course contents of both the degrees i.e. degree of M.Sc. (Horticulture) and M.Sc. (Agriculture) with Horticulture, as Major Field of Study, are the same and the nomenclature of the postgraduate degree is dependent only on the name of the degree at graduation level; and that Agriculture includes Horticulture in the broad perspective; and that though there are separate Directorate of Agriculture and Horticulture, no Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined such watertight separation of functions and duties has been so far made at the Panchayat level. He has relied upon the Circular dated 03.04.2001 read with G.R. dated 10.11.2000 and Circular dated 06.03.2006 read with G.R. dated 23.01.2006 He has submitted that respondent No.3 was duly selected and placed on the waiting list by the GPSC by considering his experience of Horticulture as valid; and that he is duly satisfying the requirement of educational qualification as well as experience as required in the advertisement for the recruitment in question; and that he is already appointed vide order dated 24.08.2009; and that about the acceptability of his experience, the GPSC made inquiry from the State Government and the State Government has confirmed that respondent No.3 is possessing the experience of Horticulture as required by the advertisement; and that the petitioner is misconstruing the requirement of experience of Horticulture as if such experience must be exclusively in Horticulture and not along with Agriculture; and that it is for the appointing authority and selecting authority i.e. the State Government and the GPSC to decide about the acceptability of the experience of the candidate concerned and in the present case, the GPSC and the State Government, both have considered his experience in Horticulture as acceptable and valid for the post in question; and that there is no illegality in selection and the proposed appointment of Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined respondent No.3; and that in earlier round of litigation i.e. Special Civil Application No.8135 of 2009 preferred by the present petitioner wherein the affidavit in reply was filed by the State Government as well as by the GPSC; and that respondent No.3 is relying on the said affidavit in replies filed by the supporting respondents in that petition. He has submitted that the present petition may be dismissed. 4.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry versus State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (2015) 17 SCC 709.
5.1 Learned AGP Ms. Pooja Ashar for the State authorities has also vehemently opposed this petition. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1 - State authorities and has submitted that the respondent No.3 was appointed after taking into consideration the recommendations made by the GPSC and the Recruitment Rules as well as the experience certificate; and that the Rules and regulations, which were published on 25.02.1997, were governing the field of recruitment for the post in question; and that respondent No.3 is possessing the postgraduate degree with distinction and the certificate was also issued by the Gujarat Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Agricultural University, Dantiwada; and that the letter dated 23.01.2004 of the Gujarat Agricultural University, Dantiwada clarifies that in course of M.Sc. (Agriculture) Horticulture, they are giving admission to the graduate of B.Sc. (Agriculture) and after passing of the examination, they are giving degree of M.Sc. (Agriculture) Horticulture; and that as per the Rules, candidates who have passed B.Sc. with Horticulture is given admission in M.Sc. with Horticulture and candidate who has passed B.Sc. with Agriculture is given admission in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Horticulture; and that the subject of M.Sc. (Agriculture) Horticulture and M.Sc. Horticulture are the same; and that since respondent No.3 has obtained the degree of M.Sc. with Horticulture as main subject, he would be eligible to compete in the matter of appointment to the post in question; and that as far as the question of experience of respondent No.3 is concerned, the certificate was issued by the District Agriculture Officer dated 31.01.2007 that the respondent No.3 was working with District Panchayat, Sabarkantha from 24.12.1996 as an Agriculture Officer (Training and Visit) and the GPSC was pleased to sort clarification by letter dated 14.05.2009 and the same was found satisfactory and therefore, the respondent No.3 was found eligible for appointment on the post of Joint Director, Horticulture, Class-I on all counts; and that the petitioner was also found to be an eligible candidate, but he Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined was posted at fourth number in the selection process and there were only three posts for Joint Director, Horticulture, Class-I, therefore, the petitioner was put in waiting list and the waiting list was required to be exhausted if the first three selected candidates do not resume their duty and therefore, the petitioner was not given appointment; and that since all the three selected candidates have resumed their duty, the question of giving appointment to the fourth one in the select list i.e. No.1 in waiting list i.e. the present petitioner would not arise; and that respond No.3 is found more meritorious than the petitioner; and that the scope of judicial interference in such matters is very limited and it is the authority who is the recruiting authority whose decision would be final and the Court may not warrant any interference in such. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather versus Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404. She has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
5.2 In support of submissions, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Raj Kumar Sharma reported in (2006) 3 SCC 330.
Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. Deepak Shukla for the respondent No.2 - the GPSC has Fairly submitted that the petitioner has not made any prayer against the GPSC. He has submitted that as such, responder No.2 would be the supporting the respondent to respond No.3. He has submitted that the action of the GPSC of selecting the respondent No.3 for the post in question is just, legal and proper; and that the GPSC vide its letter dated 16.07.2009 informed the petitioner that respondent No.3 is possessed the requisite experience of Agriculture and Horticulture; and that the GPSC vide letter dated 23.04.2009 addressed to the Director of Agriculture, Gandhinagar for getting clarification about the experience certificate submitted by respondent No.3 dated 03.01.2007 issued by the District Agricultural Officer, Sabarkantha District Panchayat at Himmatnagar; and that the Joint Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar vide letter dated 19.06.2009 submitted the details about the experience of respondent No.3 submitted by the Director of Agriculture to the Joint Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department on the basis of the details submitted by District Agricultural Officer, Sabarkantha District Panchayat, Himmatnagar. He has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
7. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined has submitted that the letters, certificates, etc., referred to in the petition or reply are not issued by the competent authorities in pursuance of any statutory powers and hence, they cannot be considered is legal and valid; and that respondent No.3 cannot have experience in Horticulture since he has to deal with agricultural crops only; and that M.Sc. Agriculture and M.Sc. Horticulture are two separate degrees and one cannot be used for the others; and that the respondent No.3 did not have requisite educational qualification as well as valid experience as required by the Recruitment Rules and advertisement. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
8.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the various the documents available on record as well as the affidavit in replies filed by respondent Nos.1 and 3, respectively, and affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner. From the record, it transpires that, as per the advertisement in question, the requisite qualification is Ph.D. Degree in any branch of Horticulture of a recognized University with about five years experience or a second class Postgraduate Degree in any branch of Horticulture of a recognized University with about 7 years experience in Horticultural research or Horticultural Education or Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Horticultural Extension Service or Horticultural Engineering. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3, both are selected for the post in question. Respondent No.3 is placed at serial number 1, whereas petitioner is placed at serial number 4 in the select list. There were total three vacant posts of Joint Directors of Horticulture, Class-I. 8.2 The appropriate requisition was made to the Gujarat Public Service Commission and in turn, the GPSC had issued advertisement on 06.12.2006. The Rules, 1997 were governing the field for the recruitment of the post in question, where the qualifications are prescribed. The authorities have, after undertaking all the required formalities, found respondent No.3 as well as the petitioner, both are eligible for the post in question. 8.3 Now, the question raised by the petitioner about the eligibility of the petitioner's educational qualification as well as experience as required for the post in question, as per the advertisement.
8.4 It is noted that the very petitioner has earlier preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No.8135 of 2009 before this Court, wherein the same respondents were the respondents there. That petition was withdrawn by the Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined petitioner with a view to challenge the appointment of respondent No.3. Therefore, the present petition is filed by the very petitioner making the very respondents as the respondents before this Court challenging the appointment of respondent No.3.
8.5 Under the circumstances, the question is cropped up before this Court that : (i) whether the petitioner, being a selectee, can challenge the appointment ? (ii) weather the petitioner can determine the equivalence of a qualification / experience in place of recruiting authority and (iii) is there a scope of judicial interference in such matters ? 8.6 Keeping in mind the above questions, this Court finds that respondent No.3 is possessing a Postgraduate Degree with distinction. Respondent No.3 has obtained degree of M.Sc. with Horticulture as main subject indisputably. With regard to the experience, the certificate/s was issued by the District Agriculture Officer dated 31.01.2007 that respondent No.3 was working with the District Panchayat, Sabarkantha from 24.12.1996 as an Agriculture Officer (Training and Visit) and the GPSC was to sought clarification vide letter dated 14.05.2009 and the same was found satisfactory, therefore, the respondent No.3 was found eligible for appointment on the post in question as respondent No.3 is possessing requisite experience.
Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 8.7 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Sharma (supra), more particularly paras : 11 and 12 thereof, which read as under.
"11. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination.
12. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake."
8.8 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra), more particularly para : 26 thereof, which reads as Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined under.
"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 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 pre- suppose 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 Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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."
8.9 At this stage, it would also be fruitful to refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajid Khan versus L.Rahmathullah and others reported in AIR 2025 SC 1300, 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 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 Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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. 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 Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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 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 Even otherwise, judicial review is not permitted in the matters of equivalence of qualification. At this stage, it would 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 : 14 Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined thereof, which reads as under.
"14. 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 recruiting authority, to determine."
9.2 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 : 13 thereof, which reads as under.
"13. 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 Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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. Indisputably, the petitioner was also a selectee at Serial No.4. He was put in waiting list as there were only three posts. The waiting list was required to be exhausted if the first three selected candidates do not resume their duty. All the three selected persons have resumed their duties. Therefore the petitioner was not given appointment.
11. It is reported that the petitioner was promoted subsequently as Joint Director of Horticulture, Class-I.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the petitioner, being a selectee cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. This Court does not warrant any interference in the decision taken by the respondent authorities in preparing the selection list as well as appointing the selected candidates as per their Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined merit in view of the advertisement. The present petition, therefore, needs to be dismissed.
13. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief/arrangement/protection, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:31 IST 2025