Allahabad High Court
Anushree Pandey vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 13 September, 2022
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30108 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anushree Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Appointment Lko. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Ran Vijay Singh Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1.Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned standing Counsel.
2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the opposite party no.2 to hold interview of the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant Examination 2016 as the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the interview on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the CCC certificate in computer operation issued from the DOEACC Society or its equivalent certificate from any institute recognized by the Government. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to treat the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application(PGDCA) equivalent to CCC as the requisite qualification for the said examination.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possess the PGDCA certificate from an institute namely Lucknow Computer Education duly registered by the U.P. Government which is a higher qualification than the CCC certificate issued by the DOEACC Society, therefore the petitioner could not have been debarred from appearing in the interview for selection and prayed for direction for holding the interview.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the essential qualification for the post in question is CCC certificate in computer operation issued by the DOEACC Society or any equivalent certificate issued by any institute recognized by the Government. The petitioner does not possess the equivalent certificate to the computer operation issued from the DOEACC Society. He also submits that the institute, though may be registered with the State Government, but the petitioner has failed to indicate that it has been recognized by the government. He also submits that the requisite qualification was CCC certificate in computer operation whereas the petitioner possess the Diploma in Computer Hardware and Networking, which cannot be treated to be the equivalent certificate. Therefore the petitioner has rightly not been allowed to appear in the interview and participate in the selection as she was not eligible. Lastly, he submitted that since the selection have already been completed and the appointments have been made, therefore no direction can be issued at this stage for holding the interview of the petitioner and the writ petition has rendered infructuous.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 by means of the notification No.04-Examination/ 2016 had notified the selection for the post of Junior Assistant. The essential qualification prescribed under the advertisement are:-1- Intermediate examination of the Board of Secondary Education, UP. or equivalent qualification recognized by the government, 2- Typing speed of 25 words per minute and 30 words per minute respectively in Hindi and English and 3- CCC certificate in computer operation issued from the DOEACC Society or any equivalent certificate issued by any institute recognized by the government. Therefore the certificate of CCC in computer operation from the DOEACC or an equivalent certificate issued by an institute recognized by the Government is one of the essential qualification. The petitioner, admittedly does not possess the CCC certificate, however he claims that the Diploma in Computer Hardware and Networking issued by the Lucknow Computer Education registered by the U.P. Government is the higher qualification therefore it cannot be said that she does not possess the essential qualification.
7. Perusal of certificate possess by the petitioner, contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition indicates that it is Diploma in Computer Hardware and Networking, which cannot be treated equivalent to computer operation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out as to how they are equal or the qualification of petitioner is higher in the same line and whether the said institute has been recognized by the government or not.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and another versus Akash Verma and others; 2021(8) ADJ (LB)(DB), has held that the prescription of qualification for a post is a matter of Recruitment policy and the State or employer is empowered to prescribe the same. The Court cannot expand upon ambit of prescribed qualification and determine the equivalence of qualification. The relevant paragraphs 31 and 32 are extracted here-in-below:-
"31. The prescription of qualification for a post, is a matter of recruitment policy. The State or the employer is empowered to prescribe the qualification as a condition of eligibility. The Court while exercising the function of judicial review, cannot expand upon ambit of prescribed qualification
32. The Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra) has held that equivalence of qualification is not a matter, which can be determined by the Court in exercise of power of judicial review. It is for the State to determine whether a particular qualification should also be regarded as a qualification. It would be apt to extract paragraphs 26 and 27 of the aforesaid judgement, which read as under :-
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] . The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned."
9. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.440 of 2021; Secretary Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services and 2 others versus Indra Prakash Patel decided on 07.07.2021, considered the equivalence of CCC certificate in Computer Operation by the DOEACC Society and held that the petitioner/ non appellant not having diploma or degree of Computer Science was not eligible even by the Government Orders. The relevant paragraph 11 is extracted here-in-below:
"11. As per the letters aforesaid, a candidate was made eligible, if he had undertaken computer science subject at the level of High School or Intermediate. It was also if one is having a diploma or degree in computer science. The petitioner / non-appellant was not having computer science subject at the level of High School / Intermediate or diploma or degree in computer science. The petitioner / non appellant is not having computer science at the level of High School or Intermediate. It is not having diploma or degree of computer science thus he was not eligible even by the Government Orders. At this stage it is necessary to observe that the administrative order referred to above i.e. 3/6.5.2016 and 23.9.2016 cannot be read in conflict to the Rules of 2015. The Rule of 2015, as amended require CCC Certificate of computer science. It could not have been nullified by an administrative order. It is settled law that an administrative order can supplement the statutory provisions but cannot supplanted it. The administrative order referred to above and quoted has supplanted the statutory provisions. It was not in the domain of the administration to issue order dehors the statutory provisions. Thus even the administrative order could not have been read to the benefit of candidate going dehors the Rules. Learned Single Judge, however, placed reliance on the administrative orders ignoring the statutory provisions. Learned Single Judge extended the benefits to the petitioner even going contrary to the administrative order. The petitioner / non appellant was not having subject of computer science at the level of High School or Intermediate. He was not otherwise in possession of diploma or degree in computer science. He was having computer subject in two semesters of B. Tech. (Agriculture) course. It does not suffice the condition given even in the administrative order and otherwise it could not have been read in conflict with the statutory provisions. Accordingly, we find substance in the appeal and accordingly the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 20.1.2020, is set aside."
10. So far as the case relied by learned counsel for the petitioner namely Abha Tripathi and others versus State of U.P. & Others; Writ A No.30313 of 2016 (2016 (9) ADJ 739) is concerned, in the said case only those petitioners, who were having Computer Science or Computer as a subject or in higher qualification have been held eligible. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner is fulfilling the requisite qualification for the selection in question.
11. Even otherwise the selection has already been completed and the result has been declared.
12. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022 Akanksha