Uttarakhand High Court
Shivani vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 March, 2020
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No.82 of 2020
Shivani .........Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others .........Respondents.
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent no.3, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Naveen Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent no.5, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.03.2020 issued by the second respondent whereby the petitioner's candidature was rejected holding that she was ineligible as she had obtained M.Sc. (Industrial Mathematics and Informatics, instead of M.Sc. Mathematics), and was ineligible to the appointed to the post of Economics and Statistics Officer in the Government of Uttarakhand.
3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner is a post-graduate in Industrial Mathematics and Informatics from the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee. She was awarded a Doctorate in Mathematics by the National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur in 2019, and has qualified, in the State Eligibility Test for Assistant Professors, conducted by Kumaun University, in Mathematical Science in 2017. An advertisement was issued on 30.08.2018 inviting applications for 14 posts of Economics and Statistics Officer in the general category, 1 for SC, 1 for ST and 2 for OBC, with 30% horizontal reservation for women, who obtained a Masters Degree in Statistics/ Mathematical Statistics/Mathematics/ Applied Economics/ Economic/ Commerce with 55% marks.
24. The petitioner appeared in the written examination, and was declared successful on 27.01.2020. Thereafter, a notification was issued by the second-respondent on 04.03.2020 fixing the date of interview as 27.03.2020. An ineligibility list was published on 04.03.2020 which included the name of the petitioner. The ground on which the petitioner's candidature was rejected was that the post-graduate degree, she had obtained in Industrial Mathematics and Informatics, was not equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement which was M.Sc. (Mathematics). The petitioner submitted her representation to the second-respondent and, since the date of interview has been fixed as 27.03.2020, she has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the post-graduate degree, which the petitioner obtained in Industrial Mathematics and Informatics from the I.I.T. Roorkee, is equivalent to that of M.Sc.(Mathematics); the subjects which the petitioner was taught in her post- graduate course in Industrial Mathematics and Informatics covers all the subjects which are taught in M.Sc.(Mathematics) by any of the universities in the State of Uttarakhand; the table in Annexure-6 of the writ petition would show that the post-graduate degree course which the petitioner has undergone at I.I.T. Roorkee covers more subjects than what is prescribed in a M.Sc.(Mathematics) course; the petitioner was, therefore, eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Economics and Statistics Officer, interviews for which are scheduled to be held on 27.03.2020; and a mandamus should be issued to the second-respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, and permit her to appear for the interview.
6. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the second- respondent, would submit that the representation, which ineligible candidates were permitted to make, was only with respect to the reasons assigned in the ineligible list; the second respondent is merely a recruiting agency; it conducts examination, selects candidates and recommends them for appointment to the State Government; the entire exercise undertaken by the 2nd respondent is on the basis of the requisition made by the State Government; the requisition, sent to the second-respondent by the State Government, was to recruit candidates for the post of Economics and Statistics Officer who possessed a post-graduate degree in M.Sc.(Mathematics), Mathematical Statistics or any of the other qualifications prescribed in the advertisement; the petitioner does not possess the qualifications stipulated in the advertisement; and, consequently, the second-
3respondent had perforce to reject her candidature. Learned Standing Counsel for the second-respondent would submit that equivalence of educational qualifications can only be examined by the State Government which sends the requisition, and not by the Public Service Commission.
7. A similar issue, on the question whether an M.Sc. in Applied Mathematics from I.I.T. Roorkee was equivalent to that of M.Sc.(mathematics), fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 582 of 2018 and batch. The Division Bench by its order dated 17.11.2018, while permitting the petitioner to participate in the interview, directed both the State Government and the Public Service Commission to undertake the exercise of determining whether the M.Sc.(Applied Mathematics) post graduate degree obtained by the petitioner was equivalent to M.Sc.(Mathematics) post graduate degree prescribed as the qualification for being considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in various Government Degree Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were also directed to bear in mind that the post graduate degree, obtained in Applied Mathematics by all the three petitioners therein, was from the prestigious I.I.T. Roorkee.
8. In compliance with the order of the Division Bench dated 17.11.2018, the State Government convened a meeting on 09.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Uttarakhand Govt. for deciding the equivalence of M.Sc.(Applied Mathematics) offered by I.I.T. Roorkee with the M.Sc.(Mathematics) prescribed in the advertisement. The said Committee came to the conclusion that the qualifications were equivalent. The petitioners therein were considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors (Mathematics) pursuant to the advertisement which stipulated the eligible qualification as M.Sc.(Mathematics), though the post graduate degree obtained by them from I.I.T. Roorkee was in M.Sc.(Applied Mathematics).
9. The question, whether the M.Sc.(Industrial Mathematics and Informatics) degree obtained by the petitioner from I.I.T. Roorkee is equivalent to M.Sc.(Mathematics), which is the prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of Economics and Statistics Officers, is for the State Government to examine, and not for this Court to adjudicate.
10. Suffice it, in the light of the order passed earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 582 of 2018 and batch dated 17.11.2018 and 12.02.2019, to direct the first-respondent to consider whether the post-graduate 4 degree in M.Sc.(Industrial Mathematics and Informatics) obtained by the petitioner from the prestigious I.I.T. Roorkee is equivalent to the M.Sc.(Mathematics) qualification prescribed in the advertisement.
11. While Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the interviews are scheduled to be held on 27.03.2019, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, on instructions, states that the interviews scheduled to be held on 27.03.2020 have been postponed; and the next date of interview would be decided by the Public Service Commission in its meeting to be held on 03.04.2020 or thereafter.
12. Both Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, submit that it is the Secretary, Higher Education who is competent to adjudge the equivalence of educational qualifications.
13. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to direct the first-respondent, in consultation with the Secretary, Higher Education and after obtaining such other expert advice as he deems fit, to determine whether or not the M.Sc.( Industrial Mathematics and Informatics) degree obtained by the petitioner from I.I.T. Roorkee is equivalent to that of the M.Sc.(Mathematics) qualification stipulated in the advertisement.
14. Since no interview are scheduled to be held at least till 03.04.2020, suffice it to direct the first-respondent to examine the matter, take a considered decision on this issue, and communicate its decision both to the petitioner and the Public Service Commission before 03.04.2020.
15. Needless to state that, in case the first-respondent holds that the qualification obtained by the petitioner from I.I.T. Roorkee is equivalent to that of M.Sc.(Mathematics), the petitioner shall then be permitted to appear in the interview, and participate in the process of selection for the post of Economics and Statistics Officer.
16. With a view to avoid needless litigation, we also request the first- respondent, in case he is satisfied that the qualification which the petitioner possesses is equivalent to that of M.Sc.(Mathematics), to consider the feasibility of amending the relevant rules to enable the other similarly situated candidates to claim a similar benefit.
17. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
518. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, within two days, on payment of prescribed charges.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)
18.03.2020
Balwant/Sukhbant