Bombay High Court
Mayur S/O Sham Dhait vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal ... on 17 December, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:13845-DB
1712WP1432-18.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1432 OF 2018
Mayur S/o Sham Dhait, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Lecturer,
R/o Mayur Shivaji Ward, At Post Tah. Desaiganj (Wadsa),
District: Gadchiroli - 441 207, Maharashtra State. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal
Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
Through its Chairman/Secretary, Cooperage
Telephone Exchange Building, 8th Floor,
Maharshi Karve Road, Cooperage, Mumbai-400021.
3. Indira Gandhi National Open University, Through
The Registrar, IGNOU Maidan, Garhi Near PVR
Saket, New Delhi 110068.
4. Avinash S/o Dattatraya Kale, Aged about 36 years,
Occ. Lecturer, R/o Mayur Nagar, Ambad,
District Jalna - 431204 (M.S.). RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri P.S. Wathore, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Shri V.B. Rathi, Advocate with Shri P.B. Patil, Counsel for the respondent no.3.
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Counsel for the respondent no.4.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : DECEMBER 10, 2024
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : DECEMBER 17, 2024
JUDGMENT (PER : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
1712WP1432-18.odt 2 Judgment
2. The challenge raised in the writ petition is to the judgment dated November 08, 2017 passed in Original Application No.731 of 2014 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for short, 'the Tribunal'). By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal had rejected the prayer of the petitioner of issuance of directions to the respondent no.2- Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short, 'the respondent no.2- M.P.S.C.') to conduct interview of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Electronics Engineering, Maharashtra Polytechnic Teachers Services Group-A, in response to the advertisement no.07 of 2013 from the reserved post of N.T. (D) category. The petitioner had further sought a declaration to the effect that the result of the post of Lecturer in Electronics Engineering from N.T. (D) category be declared by including the name of the petitioner in the select list.
3. The facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are as under :
The petitioner holds a degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics & Communication from Kavi Kulguru Institute of Technology and Science, Ramtek which was cleared by him in Second Class. The petitioner then completed his M.Tech. in Advanced Information Technology with Specialization in Embedded System Design in December-2012 by securing 66% marks i.e. in First Class from Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi (for short, IGNOU'). The petitioner thereafter secured employment on the post of Assistant Professor on ad-hoc basis in an Engineering Institute at Wardha.
1712WP1432-18.odt 3 Judgment
4. The respondent no.2-M.P.S.C. issued an advertisement on July 06, 2013 inviting applications for filling in the posts of Lecturer in Electronics Engineering. The petitioner was aspirant for applying for the said post and pursuant to the hall ticket issued to him, he appeared for the said examination. After clearing the said examination, his name was accordingly included in the list of candidates qualified for the interview to be held on October 18, 2014. In response to the call letter received by him, he attended the Office of the respondent no.2.
Upon verification of the documents, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent no.2 which had prompted him to approach before the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by him, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. Shri P.S. Wathore, learned counsel for the petitioner would invite attention of this Court to the qualifications of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner belongs to N.T. (D) category and holds the tribe validity certificate issued by the competent scrutiny committee. It is further claimed that the petitioner has passed the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics & Communication in Second Division in Winter-2009 having scored aggregate of 1599 marks out of 2750 marks. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner appeared for M.Tech. Examination conducted by the IGNOU and it is certified that he has passed the said examination successfully by securing 66% of marks in Advanced Information Technology with Specialization in Embedded System Design.
1712WP1432-18.odt 4 Judgment According to the counsel for the petitioner, the advertisement for the post of Lecturer in Electronics Engineering, Maharashtra Polytechnic Teachers Services Group-A was issued and the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria with regard to the educational qualification. By drawing support from the Government Resolution dated May 06, 2013, he would urge that the Government of Maharashtra had declared the equivalent courses and Information Technology in which the petitioner holds a M.Tech. Degree is said to be equivalent to the requisite qualification prescribed. Similarly, it is claimed that the degree qualification held by the petitioner in Electronics & Communication cannot be discarded to reject his candidature. He would claim that the petitioner having secured M.Tech. qualification, which is Post-Graduate in Information & Technology, is said to be equivalent to the one required for the post of Lecturer under the advertisement. According to him, the petitioner who has applied for the post of Lecturer in Electronics Engineering has been holding appropriate qualification in view of the equivalence prescribed in the Government Resolution dated May 06, 2013. He would draw support from Clauses 4 and 6 of the said Government Resolution which provides for the equivalence in the Degree and Post-Graduate Degree courses. According to him, even if this Court verifies the subjects of Degree and Post-Graduate Degree courses of the petitioner with that of the subjects that are prescribed, this Court can easily infer that the petitioner can be said to be qualified for the said post of Lecturer. It is further claimed that even if the petitioner holds Second-Class in Degree course, that by itself does not 1712WP1432-18.odt 5 Judgment incur him disqualification from being considered for the post of Lecturer as the petitioner has achieved First-Class in Post-Graduate Degree course. In view of the aforesaid, he has prayed that the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
6. As against above, Shri S.M. Ukey, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Shri R.G. Kavimandan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 would oppose the prayers made in the writ petition as according to them, it is not open for this Court to decide the equivalence. Specific reliance is placed on the Apex Court judgment in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others Versus Sheikh Imtiyaz ahmad & Others [(2019) 2 SCC 404] wherein it is held that the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. In exercise of powers to cause judicial review, the Courts can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification.
Apart from above, by placing reliance on the judgments in Unnikrishnan CV & Others Versus Union of India & Others [AIR 2023 SC 1943] and Guru Nanak Dev University Versus Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Another [(2009) 1 SCC 610], it is claimed that since determination of equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed by the Courts. Based on the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has recently in Shifana P.S. Versus State of Kerala & Others [(2024) 1712WP1432-18.odt 6 Judgment 8 SCC 309] has held that in view of the settled principle of law in the aforesaid judgments, the Courts cannot decide the equivalence since it being a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed.
In this background, it is claimed that once the expert body has decided that the petitioner is not qualified for selecting him on the post of Lecturer, since he is not holding requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, the issue decided by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have considered the rival claims.
8. As regards the petitioner holding Graduate qualification in Electronics & Communication having passed in Second Division and M.Tech Post-Graduate qualification in Advanced Information Technology with Specialization in Embedded System Design having passed in First Division, is not in dispute. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Electronics Engineering. The fact remains that the petitioner does not hold Degree in Electronics Engineering, which is the requisite qualification prescribed under the advertisement, either in Graduate course or in the Post-Graduate course. The petitioner has accordingly sought support from equivalence prescribed by the State Government in the Government Resolution dated May 06, 2013. A perusal of the equivalence provided in the said Government Resolution does not support the case of the petitioner as the petitioner is holding the Graduate qualification in 1712WP1432-18.odt 7 Judgment Electronics & Communication. The equivalence prescribed in the Government Resolution dated May 06, 2013 in categorical terms does not lead to an inference that the petitioner is holding requisite educational qualification as prescribed by the advertisement in question. The counsel appearing for the respondents have rightly drawn support from the judgments of the Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others, Unnikrishnan CV & Others, Guru Nanak Dev University and Shifana P.S. (supra). It is not open for this Court to decide the equivalence or impliedly assume the equivalence. Apart from above, the Tribunal has gone into every facet of the matter which is sought to be canvassed by the petitioner. The Tribunal, after considering the applicability of the Government Resolution dated May 06, 2013 to the educational qualification prescribed for the post for which the petitioner was competing, has held that the petitioner has obtained the Post-Graduate Degree qualification (M.Tech.) in Advanced Information Technology with Specialization in Embedded System Design which cannot be said to be equivalent with the Post-Graduate Degree in Electronics Engineering. There is no reason to discard the observations recorded by the Tribunal as the inference of equivalence is sought to be drawn by the petitioner by drawing support from the interpretation of the Government Resolution dated May 06, 2013. The interpretation is in tune with what has been prescribed in the Government Resolution but the petitioner's argument would lead to reading something in the Government Resolution which is not expressly provided.
1712WP1432-18.odt 8 Judgment
9. In this background, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled for being allowed to appear in the process of the oral interview for the post of Lecturer. There is no error apparent in the view taken by the Tribunal while upholding the decision of the respondent no.2-M.P.S.C. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed since it sans merit. The interim order which was granted by the Tribunal on October 29, 2014 was continued by this Court vide order dated March 27, 2018. Rule stands discharged. With the dismissal of the writ petition, the said interim order stands vacated. Pending civil applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/12/2024 11:10:22