Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulshan Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 December, 2011
Bench: Permod Kohli, Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.22585 of 2011
Date of Decision:6.12.2011
Gulshan Singh and another .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Present: Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
The petitioners before us have challenged the vires of Amendment Rules, namely, Haryana Veterinary Headquarter and Field (Group-C) (Amendment) Rules, 2011 notified vide notification dated 28.2.2011 whereby the Universities whose qualification has been recognized for purposes of recruitment to the post of Veterinary & Live-Stock Development Assistant have been enlisted in Appendix- E to the Rules. Brief facts necessary for purposes of this petition are noticed here-in-after.
The petitioners have acquired diploma of Veterinary & Live- Stock Development from IASE University, Rajasthan.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that this University is duly recognized by the UGC. However, State of Haryana by impugned amendment of the recruitment rules, namely, Haryana Veterinary Headquarter and Field (Group-C) (Amendment) Rules, 1999, only 30 Universities imparting diploma courses for purposes of recruitment particularly to the post of Veterinary & C.W.P No.22585 of 2011 -2- Live- Stock Development Assistant have been recognized. The University wherefrom the petitioners have acquired the diploma is excluded from the enlisted Universities in Appendix-E. Thus, by virtue of the amendment, the petitioners have been rendered ineligible. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that once a University is recognized by the UGC, the State Government cannot make a choice to restrict the qualification acquired from 30 Universities and exclude some of the universities imparting similar courses.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. To lay down the qualification, experience and also to decide as to which of the course acquired from the University is to be recognized is prerogative of the Employer. The Employer has the discretion to decide about all these matters etc. The Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of employer. It is the prerogative of the Employer to find out about the status and courses being offered by the universities and to make a choice for purposes of the recruitment to public services. The Court should be reluctant to interfere in such matters.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of J & K v. Shiv Ram Sharma and others, 1999(2) SCT 599 has observed as under:
"The law is well settled that it is permissible for the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts. The case put forth on behalf of the respondents is that when they joined the service the C.W.P No.22585 of 2011 -3- the requirement of passing the matriculation was not needed and while they are in service such prescription has been made to their deteriment. But it is clear that there is no indefeasible right in the respondents to claim for promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that those rules framed by the Government in that behalf would always be favourable to them. In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, 1968 (1) SCR 185, it was held by this Court that once appointed an employee has no vested right in regard to the terms of service but acquires a status and, therefore, the rights and obligations thereto are no longer determined by consent of parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. The High Court has also noticed that there was an avenue provided for promotion but the prescription of the qualification was not favourable to respondents. The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to a particular individual employee but with reference to the conditions of service as such. As long as rules provide for conditions of service making an avenue for promotion to higher grades the observations made in T.R. Kothandaramans case (supra) stand fulfilled. In that C.W.P No.22585 of 2011 -4- view of the matter, we do not think the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents."
In the realm of service jurisprudence framing of rules, prescription of qualifications, eligibility and the recognition of the qualification is the sole prerogative of the employer. It is not for the Courts to venture into such an exercise which is the function of experts in the field. The Employer is the best judge to lay down the conditions for recruitment/appointment to various posts in the hierarchy of service. Merely because some conditions, qualifications or eligibility is not conducive to a particular section of the candidates or employees does not per se permit the Court to exercise the power of judicial review unless in the opinion of the Court the exercise of power is arbitrary or is in contravention of any constitutional provision.
In view of the above, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the Rules. Consequently, other impugned orders challenged in the petition having been passed on the basis of the statutory rules also deserves no interference.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Permod Kohli) Judge ( Tejinder Singh Dhindsa ) Judge 6.12.2011 rajeev