Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jyoti vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 May, 2023
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171
CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:078171
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M)
Reserved on:10.05.2023
Pronounced on:26.05.2023
Jyoti ...Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2. CWP No.24165 of 2018 (O&M)
Pankaj and others ...Petitioners
Vs
Haryana Staff Selection Commission ...Respondents
3. CWP No.24279 of 2018 (O&M)
Vinay Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ...Respondents
4. CWP No.5322 of 2019 (O&M
Jatin Bhatia ...Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
5. CWP No.13609 of 2020 (O&M)
Vikas Singh ...Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP No.21766 of 2018 and
CWP No.13609 of 2020.
Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP No.24165 of 2018.
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.24279 of 2018.
Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171
CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:078171
for the petitioner in CWP No.5322 of 2019.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Narinder Singh Behgal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate
for respondent-HSAMB.
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and
Mr. Saloni Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2 in CWP No.24279 of 2018.
*****
JAISHREE THAKUR J.
1. This order of mine shall dispose of five writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 21766 of 2018; 24165 of 2018; 24279 of 2018; 5322 of 2019 and 13609 of 2020, and as the grievance raised by the petitioner(s) in all the writ petitions is that they have not been called for interview on the ground that they did not possess requisite six months/one year computer certificate/diploma in computer from a recognized institution.
2. In brief, facts, which have led to the filing of the instant writ petition, are that Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula (HSSC in short) had published Advertisement No.7/2015 dated 10.07.2015 for direct recruitment of various categories of posts as mentioned in the said advertisement. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioners in the afore-captioned writ petitions had applied for various posts, details of which are tabulated as under:-
CWP No.21766 of 2018
Name of the Advt. Cat. No. & Essential qualification Qualification petitioner No. name of post of the petitioner Jyoti 7/15 Cat No.17, i) Graduation with 55% B.Sc.
Mandi marks from a
Supervisor- recognised University
cum-Fee with six months
Collector certificate in computer
from a recognised
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171
CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:078171
Institutions; and
ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto
Matric Standard or
higher education.
CWP No.13609 of 2020
Vikas Singh As As above As above B.Sc.
above
CWP No.24165 of 2018
Pankaj As Cat. No.18, i) Bachelor of B.Com; 1 year
above Accountant Commerce with 55% Diploma in
(MC) from a recognized Computer
University; application
ii) Six months certificate from Haryana
course in computer from State Council
a recognized institution; for Child
and Welfare
iii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto
Matric standard or
higher education.
Deepak As As above As above B.Com; 1 year
Sharma above diploma in
Computer
Application
from
HARTRON.
Pardeep Kumar As As above As above B.Com; 1 year
above Diploma in
Computer
Application
from Micro
Computers
Education
Samiti.
Khushdeep As As above As above B.Com; 1 year
Singh above Diploma in
Computer
Application
from Maha
Rishi
Dayanand
Saraswati
Higher
Education &
Vocational
Training
Society.
Sanjay Kumar As As above As above B.Com; Course
above in Industrial
Accountant
from the
Institute of
Computer
Accountants,
Kolkata.
CWP No.5322 of 2019
Jatin Bhatia As Cat. No.19, ii) Graduation with i) Bachelor of
above Auction 55% marks from a Technology
Recorder recognised University (Electronic &
with six months Comm.
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171
CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:078171
certificate in computer Engineering)
from a recognised ii) MBA
Institutions; and iii) PGDCA
ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto from Sunrise
Matric Standard or University
higher education. recognized by
UGC & Govt.
of India.
CWP No.24279 of 2018
Vinay Kumar 6/2016 Cat. No.56, i) Graduate from B.Sc.
Field Inspector recognized University. Computer
(Store) ii) Minimum 1 year Science
diploma in computer
from the recognized
University/Institute.
iii) Knowledge of
Hindi/Sanskrit upto
Matric Standard or
Higher education.
3. Petitioners herein claiming to be eligible in their respective categories of posts, submitted their online applications. Being successful in the written examination conducted by the respondent-Commission, they were called for scrutiny of documents. They appeared before the competent authorities for scrutiny of documents and submitted requisite documents pertaining to their qualifications. However, they were surprised to find that their names were not reflected in the list of candidates called for the interview. They were orally informed by the respondent-Commission that they did not possess the requisite six months/1 year computer certificate/diploma from a recognized institution and therefore, they did not qualify for interview.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP Nos.21766, 24279 of 2018 and 13609 of 2020 would contend that despite having necessary qualification, as the petitioners have done Bachelor of Science with Computer Science as one of the subjects from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, they were entitled to be called for interview. It was further argued that detailed mark sheets as appended with the writ petitions would reflect that they had studied the subject of Computer Science while 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171 CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:078171 pursuing their graduation degree in Bachelor of Science. It was further argued that a reading of the advertisement would reflect that only qualification required was a six months computer certificate from a recognized institution and having done B.Sc. from the Kurukshetra University wherein Computer Science was one of the subjects, there was no occasion for the respondents to ignore said aspect. It was also argued that B.Sc. with Computer Science as one of the subjects, is a higher qualification than a six months' computer certificate from a recognized institution.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWP No.5322 of 2019 would contend that the petitioner applied under Advertisement No.7/2015 for post of Auction Recorder under Category No.19. It was argued that the petitioner had obtained degree in Bachelor of Technology (Electronic & Communication Engineering) from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra; MBA from National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra with Computer Application in Management as one of the subjects and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from Sun Rise University, duly established by the Government of Rajasthan vide Sun Rise University Act, 2011 and recognized by UGC and Government of India. However, the petitioner, who had necessary marks to be considered eligible for calling for an interview, was declared not eligible on the ground that he did not have a six months computer certificate from a recognized institution. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP No.24165 of 2018 adopted the same arguments as have been raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWP No.5322 of 2019.
6. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP Nos.24165 of 2018 and CWP No.5322 of 2019 would raise an additional 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171 CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -6- 2023:PHHC:078171 argument that in CWP No.20394 of 2018 titled as Prince Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 14.11.2018 and other connected matters, the issue regarding Computer Course for the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector came up for consideration before this Court. The challenge in those writ petitions was similar where the candidature of petitioners therein had been rejected on account of not considering the computer certificates as appended by them. At that juncture, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission held a meeting on 07.09.2018 and thereby took a decision enlisting 16 institutions, which were to be considered as recognized for the posts of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector. It was further argued by the counsel appearing in CWP No.24165 of 2018 that computer course done by petitioner No.1 from Haryana State Council for Child Welfare and computer course done by petitioner No.2 from HARTRON have been mentioned in the list of aforesaid 16 institutions and therefore, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondent-Commission. Similarly other petitioners in CWP No.24165 of 2018 have also obtained computer certificates from recognized institutions and therefore, their candidature cannot be rejected merely on the ground that those institutions are not found mentioned in the list of said 16 institutions. It was also argued that the posts of Accountant (MC) and Mandi Supervisor-Cum-Fee Collector were advertised under one advertisement i.e. Advertisement No.7 of 2015 and therefore, no different yardstick can be applied in recognizing an institution.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioner in CWP No.5322 of 2019 would also submit that apart from degree of the petitioner in Bachelor of Technology (Electronic & Communication Engineering), he has also done Post Graduation Diploma in Computer Application from a recognized 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171 CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -7- 2023:PHHC:078171 University and by virtue of the decision taken in the meeting held on 07.09.2018 of the HSSC, the petitioner would be eligible to be called for interview.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would urge with great vehemence that the petitioners herein are bound by the terms and conditions of the advertisement and since they did not possess six months' computer certificate from a recognized institution, they cannot be held eligible to be called for interview.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the pleadings of the case.
9. A perusal of the paper book would reflect that during the course of arguments in one of the connected matters i.e. CWP No.13609 of 2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court took note of the contention raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner therein that the petitioner could not be held ineligible on the ground that he did not possess six months' computer certificate, as he has studied Computer Science as one of the subjects in all three years of his B.Sc., which would be equivalent to six months certificate course in computers imparting basic knowledge.. It was also submitted that several persons, who have obtained a similar B.Sc. degree with Computer Science as a subject had been considered eligible. Based on the contentions raised, the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.11.2020 directed the Registrar to constitute an expert committee to examine the issue of equivalence of the study of computer education by the petitioner during B.Sc. with a six months' computer certificate. The said order was modified by this very Court on 11.01.2023 and with consent of parties, the Registrar of MDU, Rohtak was directed to constitute an expert 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171 CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -8- 2023:PHHC:078171 committee to examine the issue of equivalence of study of computer education as done by the petitioners during their B.Sc. course with six months computer certificate as required under the advertisement in question. Pursuant thereto, report of the Registrar, MDU dated 17.02.2023 has been received, relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-
"...After perusal of the DMCs in r/o Mr. Vikas Singh, one of the petitioners who has passed B.Sc. with Computer Science as a subject from KUK (State University recognized by UGC) as well as the copy of the advertisement, List of Computer Diplomas for the post etc., the Committee after detailed deliberation was of the considered opinion and recommended that any student with B.Sc. having studied Computer Science/Computer Application/IT subject or equivalent subject may be considered as equivalent to six months Computer Course Certificate required for the said post(s), which is also covered in the List of Courses mentioned at Sr. No.5 in the above-said memo as well as in the Advt."
10. A reading of the aforesaid report would reflect that the Committee has recommended that the qualification of B.Sc. with Computer Science/Computer Application/IT subject or equivalent subject, may be considered as equivalent to a six months computer course certificate. This Court is not competent to go into the equivalence of courses undertaken and has no hesitation in holding so; therefore, the report of the expert committee cannot be negated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman v. Rahul Singh, 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2861 has held, "Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171 CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -9- 2023:PHHC:078171 to upset the opinion of the experts." It would be appropriate to refer to the judgments as rendered by the Supreme Court to the effect that the courts should refrain from giving their own opinion over and above the opinion given by an Expert Committee. The judgements of the Supreme Court in this regard are Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others (1983) 4 SCC 309, Rishal and others v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others (2018) 8 SCC 81, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and another v. Rahul Singh and another (2018) 7 SCC 254 and Sarita Meena v. State of Rajasthan 2021 (1) RLW 650. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in National Board of Examination v. Association of MD Physicians, 2022 AIR (Delhi) 246, has also recently held that Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction. Consequently, this court is also of the opinion that once the Expert Committee, well versed in the subject, has given its definite opinion, this Court would rely on the report wherein it has been stated that course as undertaken by the petitioners i.e. B.Sc. with Computer Science/Computer Application/IT subject may be considered as equivalent to a six months computer course certificate. According to the report, such courses undertaken would also be covered under Sr. No.5 of 16 institutions as recognized by the HSSC. The question whether the stipulation or prescription of the particular academic qualification excludes an applicant who possesses what is termed as a higher qualification, from their candidature to the concerned post, has often arisen for consideration. The Full Bench of this court in Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2010(3) S.C.T. 703 has held that the candidature of the candidates possessing higher 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171 CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -10- 2023:PHHC:078171 qualifications cannot be rejected, particularly when the higher qualification is acquired in the same stream.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners in CWP Nos.21766 of 2018, 24279 of 2018 and 13609 of 2020 are eligible for their respective posts to which they applied for and therefore, the respondent-Commission is directed to recommend their names for appointment to the said posts if they are otherwise meritorious and eligible to the concerned department and appointment letter be issued to them forthwith. Needless to say they will be entitled for all notional benefits. Consequently, CWP Nos.21766 of 2018, 24279 of 2018 and 13609 of 2020 are allowed.
12. As regards CWP No.5322 of 2019, petitioner-Jatin Bhatia has done his PGDCA from Sun Rise University, which is established under the State Act and recognized by the UGC and Government of India and therefore, falls under Sr. No.15 of the list of 16 institutions which have been recognized by HSSC and therefore, he is also considered eligible for the post of Auction Recorder under Category No.19. The HSSC is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the said post to the concerned department, which shall issue appointment letter to him forthwith, if found otherwise eligible. Needless to say, he will be entitled for all notional benefits. Consequently, CWP No.5322 of 2019 also stands allowed.
13. Petitioners No.1 and 2 in CWP No.24165 of 2018 obtained their computer diploma/certificate for a duration of one year from Haryana State Council for Child Welfare and HARTRON respectively, which are recognized institutions as per the list provided by HSSC at Sr. No.7 and 4 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171 CWP No. 21766 of 2018 (O&M) -11- 2023:PHHC:078171 respectively. However, certificates attached by petitioners No.3 to 5 are not issued by the institutions, which are held recognized by HSSC and therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration. Consequently, CWP No.24165 of 2018 is disposed of holding petitioners No.1 and 2 eligible. The HSSC is directed to recommend names of the petitioners No.1 and 2 for appointment to the said post of Accountant (M.C.) to the concerned department, which shall issue appointment letters to them forthwith, if found otherwise eligible. Needless to say, they will be entitled for all notional benefits. Petitioners No.3 to 5 in this writ petition are held to be not eligible.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
JUDGE
May 26, 2023
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:078171
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 31-05-2023 00:42:22 :::