Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ladu Lal Nayak vs R P S C Ajmer And Ors on 27 April, 2013
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18837/2012 With Stay Application No.15481/2012 Kailash Chandra Meena and Others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer and Others 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20504/2012 With Stay Application No.16613/2012 Ladu Lal Nayak Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer and Others Date of Order ::: 27.04.2013 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Ram Pratap Saini, counsel for petitioners Shri Amit Kuri, counsel for respondents #### //Reportable// By the Court:-
These writ petitions have been preferred by petitioners against corrigendum issued by respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission, dated 29.10.2012, whereby the R.P.S.C. has invited fresh applications for appointment on 16 posts of Lecturer (Business Administration) for the Department of College Education, which were earlier notified vide advertisement dated 21.09.2010. clause-2 of originally issued advertisement dated 21.09.2010, which is for educational qualification, provides that for appointment on that post, a candidate, apart from having good academic record, must possess a Post Graduation Degree in the subject concerned from any University in India with at-least 55% marks or equivalent grade, or equivalent Degree from any University in Foreign.
According to petitioners, the R.P.S.C. did not initially, in the first instance, treat the candidates having the qualification of Master of Business Administration (for short, 'MBA'). The petitioners are those, who are also holding the qualification of M.Com. in the subject of Business Administration, and were allowed to appear in the screening test, which was meant for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates. Their result was declared and thereafter the programme was issued by the R.P.S.C. on 17.02.2012 for commencement of interviews. Categorywise result giving the roll numbers of candidates, who qualified the examination, was notified by the R.P.S.C., requiring them to download the application form from its web-site and forward the same to the R.P.S.C. with their testimonials, upto 24.02.2012. Thereafter the dates of interviews were to be notified. It was thereafter that the R.P.S.C. on 29.10.2012 issued aforesaid corrigendum directing that the candidates possessing the Degree of MBA (M.B.A./M.B.A. With specialization in functional and related area/M.H.R.M./M.I.B./M.M.S.) would also be treated eligible, if they satisfy the other eligibility conditions. The corrigendum is purported to have been issued in pursuance of letter of the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, Jaipur.
In their counter-affidavit filed on 29.03.2013 in the form of application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, respondent R.P.S.C. has clarified that the R.P.S.C. received only 245 applications in response to the advertisement dated 21.09.2010 for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Business Administration). The on-line screening examination was conducted on 04.12.2011, result of which was declared on 07.02.2012. In all 65 candidates were declared successful. Out of these 65 candidates, 9 candidates did not submit their detailed application forms even after a specific request and these 9 candidates were declared ineligible, which also include petitioner no.4 Pratibha Meena in Writ Petition No.18837/2012. When the applications were scrutinized, it was found that 31 of these candidates are holding qualification of MBA and, as such, they were also excluded. Thus, as against 16 posts so advertised, only 25 candidates were tentatively found eligible. Thereafter when the final result of on-line screening examination was declared on 21.03.2012, only 15 candidates were declared successful.
Shri R.D. Saini, learned counsel for petitioners, has argued that action of the respondents was wholly illegal. According to conditions of eligibility of University Grants Commission, only those candidates possessing the Post Graduation Degree in the subject of Business Administration were eligible for appointment on the post of Lecturer in that subject. Degree of MBA has never been accepted as valid eligibility qualification for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Business Administration). No such deviation has been made in any other subjects except the subject of Business Administration. Besides, the respondents have already conducted the examination and petitioners have qualified that examination and thereafter their result was declared. Thereafter, they were called upon to download the OMR application form and duly submit the same to the R.P.S.C. along-with their testimonials, which the petitioners did. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that issuance of the corrigendum now would tantamount to changing the rule of game in the midst of process of selection and would therefore be wholly illegal and unconstitutional. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree Vs. State of AP and Another (2008) 3 SCC 512.
Shri Amit Kuri, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the on-line written examination, was only a screening examination. As per the decision of the R.P.S.C., three times candidates of the advertised vacancies, were to be invited for interview, the appointments being entirely based on interview. Keeping in view that availability of candidates in much lesser number than requisite three times the number of vacancies, it was therefore decided to postpone the interviews, scheduled to commence from 14.03.2012 to 19.03.2012. It was found that many candidates holding qualification of MBA preferred applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Business Administration) on the ground of its equivalence to the qualification of M.Com. (Business Administration). Number of representations were received from such candidates. The R.P.S.C., therefore, constituted a committee of three experts of the subject to consider the nomenclature of Degree of MBA with the Degree of M.Com. (Business Administration). The said Committee resolved that the Degree of MBA/MBA with specialization in functional and related area/MHRM/MIB/MMS be considered equivalent to M.Com. (Business Administration). The recommendations of the Committee were sent to the Government for its approval. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, vide its letter dated 06.08.2012 informed the R.P.S.C. that the Government has approved the recommendations of the Committee. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Full Commission of the R.P.S.C. on 11.10.2012, which also approved the recommendations of the Committee and therefore the corrigendum advertisement was issued on 29.10.2012. The impugned corrigendum was issued to invite fresh applications not only from the candidates having qualification of M.B.A., but also from those who possess the Degree of M.Com. (Business Administration). The corrigendum was issued in continuation of the earlier advertisement dated 21.09.2010 and therefore, those who had already applied earlier, were not required to apply again. The date for submitting the application forms was extended upto 25.11.2012. This has been done only with a view to ensuring that all eligible candidates get equal opportunity to compete and best suitable candidates for the post are selected. Process of selection that was initiated with the initial advertisement/notification dated 21.09.2010 has merely been kept alive and continuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree, supra, does not apply in the present case.
Shri Amit Kuri, learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of the Court towards Division Bench judgment dated 30.102.012 of this Court in Special Appeal (Writ) No.863/2012. The challenge before the Division Bench was made to the judgment of the Single Bench dated 03.05.2012 in Writ Petition No.6734/2012. The Single Bench in that judgment held that the qualification of MBA (Master of Business Administration) will not be considered equivalent to the qualification of the M.Com (Business Administration) on the analogy that this was a technical qualification recognized by the AICT, whereas the Examination for the Degree of M.Com. is conducted by the University. The Division Bench superseded the judgment of the Single Bench on the premise that the qualification of Post Graduation in Business Administration with 55% is treated equivalent to M.Com. even by the University.
I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record.
The facts noted above clearly show that the R.P.S.C. had issued the impugned corrigendum inviting applications, apart from the candidates who had already applied in response to earlier advertisement, also from the candidates possessing qualification of MBA. The R.P.S.C. has other reasons as well to issue the said corrigendum. The stand of the R.P.S.C. is that the examination which the petitioners qualified, was only a screening test and was not meant for preparing the final merit for appointment on the post in question. It was merely a screening examination for the purpose of shortlisting. As against 16 advertised posts, only 65 applications were received. Out of them, 9 candidates did not submit their detailed application forms even after they were specifically requested and therefore they were declared ineligible, which also included petitioner no.4 Pratibha Meena. Total 65 candidates qualified the screening test, result of which was declared on 07.02.2012. When the applications received on OMR sheet with testimonials were scrutinized, it was found that 31 candidates out of them were possessing the qualification of MBA and after excluding them, there remained only 25 candidates, who were tentatively found eligible. Thereafter the result of the on-line screening was declared on 21.03.2012 wherein 15 candidates were declared successful. The purpose of holding the written examination was to shortlist the candidates. The respondents received 245 applications. Since the number of applications received were more than three times of the number of advertised vacancies, therefore the necessity arose for holding the screening examination but the ultimate outcome of the screening was that only 15 candidates were found eligible as against 16 advertised vacancies. The very purpose of holding the screening examination thus stand frustrated, there being no element of competition whatsoever.
One of the candidates, namely, Gautam Prakash, who held the qualification of M.B.A., approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.6734/2012 challenging action of the respondents in declaring him ineligible for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Business Administration). Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding thus, ...The requirement of the qualification is not of MBA but Post Graduation in Business Administration. The documents at Annexure-6 & 7 are not of Post Graduation qualification in Business Administration. The qualification of MBA is technical qualification therefore, only it is controlled under the Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. The MBA course are recognized by AICT whereas Post Graduation course do3es not come under AICT but is conducted by the University. The qualification of Post Graduation in Business Administration is called as M.Com i.e., Master in Commerce. The petitioner has wrongly taken MBA course as P.G. qualification so as to treat him qualified with Post Graduate in Commerce.
Aforesaid judgment of Single Bench was challenged before the Division Bench by filing Special Appeal (Writ) No.863/2012. The Division Bench was informed that even the University is treating the qualification of Master of Business Administration as equivalent to M.Com. in Business Administration. On that basis, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal superseding the judgment of the Single Bench dated 03.05.2012.
Moreover, the respondents before treating the qualification of MBA equivalent to M.Com. (Business Administration), formed a committee of three experts in the subject, namely, Dr. J.K. Sharma, Professor & Head, Department of Business Administration, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Dr. Rajesh Kothari, Professor, R.A. Podar Institute of Management, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, and Dr. Navin Mathur, Professor, Department of Business Administration, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. On critical examination of the entire material placed before it, the Committee resolved as under:-
The Committee critically examined the M.Com. (Business Administration) vis-a-vis Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.), Master of Human Resource Management (M.H.R.M.), Maser of International Business (M.I.B.), Master of Management Studies/Sciences (M.M.S.) courses run by different Universities accredited by the University Grants Commission. The Committee unanimously resolves that the Degree of M.B.A./M.B.A. With specialization in functional and related area/M.H.R.M./M.I.B./M.M.S. be considered equivalent to M.Com. (Business Administration) as coverage of courses and their contents evident from their respective syllabus is almost same. Hence, the Committee further resolves that candidates possessing any of the above degrees should be considered eligible for appointment as Lecturer in Business Administration in Government Colleges of Rajasthan. Further, the NET in Management is equivalent to NET in Commerce. Likewise candidates who have passed M.Com. (Business Administration) or any of the above mentioned courses be also considered eligible for appointment as lecturer in management.
It was thereafter that the recommendations of the said Committee of experts were sent by the R.P.S.C. vide its letter dated 07.06.2012 to the Government for its approval. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education) vide his letter dated 06.08.2012 informed the R.P.S.C. that the Government has approved the recommendations of the Committee and directed that the candidates having possessed M.B.A./M.B.A. With specialization in functional and related area/M.H.R.M./M.I.B./M.M.S., may be treated eligible for appointment on the post of Lecturers in Business Administration, if they satisfy other conditions.
In the light of these facts, it cannot be said that the respondents have changed the rules of game in the midst of the process of selection. The respondents have in continuation of earlier advertisement dated 21.09.2010, issued a fresh corrigendum dated 29.10.2012 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Business Administration, from those who possess the qualification of M.B.A., which has been considered equivalent to M.Com. (Business Administration). That would only mean that the process of selection, which was initiated by original issued advertisement dated 21.09.2010, has been kept alive and would continue till complete exercise is undertaken by the R.P.S.C. after receiving fresh applications in response to the corrigendum dated 29.10.2012. The candidates who have already applied in response to earlier advertisement dated 21.09.2010, were not required to again apply pursuant to corrigendum dated 29.10.2012. This would entitle even petitioner no.4 Pratibha Meena in Writ Petition No.18837/2012 to also compete for appointment. The decision of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree, supra, was rendered in entirely different facts situation. Therein the earlier criteria providing 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview, in the ratio of 3:1, was changed by prescribing 100 marks of written examination with 25 marks for interview, thus changing the ratio of such examination vis-a-vis interview to 4:1. That judgment does not deal with the situation where a corrigendum was issued inviting fresh applications in continuation with earlier advertisement. The action of the respondents merely gives opportunity to all those who are eligible to apply afresh regardless of whether they hold the qualification of M.Com. (Business Administration) or MBA. This court is satisfied with the explanation furnished by the R.P.S.C. why corrigendum dated 29.10.2012 was issued. Issuance of the corrigendum even otherwise became necessary because the purpose of holding screening examination was shortlisting and that purpose was frustrated when ultimately only 15 candidates were found eligible as against 16 advertised vacancies.
It is settled proposition of law that mere selection as such does not confer any right on the selected candidates for appointment. In the present case, the petitioners were not even selected. They were merely shortlisted for appointment and therefore, their right cannot even be taken to the same pedestal as that of the selected candidates. Petitioners merely have the right of consideration for appointment, so to say the right to compete with other eligible candidates for appointment. That right of the petitioners has not been taken away by mere issuance of the corrigendum by the R.P.S.C. The corrigendum merely seeks to enlarge the scope of competition thereby bringing in more number of eligible candidates within the zone to compete with the petitioners for appointment. Such action of the respondents does not in any manner infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed, however, with the clarification that petitioner no.4 Pratibha Meena in Writ Petition No.18837/2012 would continue to remain eligible to compete for appointment on the post in question.
Consequent upon dismissal of writ petitions, the stay applications, filed therewith, do not survive and same are also dismissed.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//52-53 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW