Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Sikarwar vs Union Of India on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188
1 WP. No. 7515 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7515 of 2014
RAVI SIKARWAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General for respondent
No.1/UOI.
Shri Arvind Agrawal- Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3/FCI.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-
"i) That, inaction of the respondents may kindly be held to be illegal, arbitrary and malafide, hence, directions deserves to be issued to the Respondents to issue offer of appointment expeditiously in pursuance of Annexure -P/1 (List of Posting) in favour of the petitioner keeping in view of the list in respect of order of posting (Annexure -P/1) issued by the respondents, in the interest of justice.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188 2 WP. No. 7515 of 2014
ii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including cost throughout may also be granted.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner possesses the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) and also possesses Master's degree as M.Sc. (Forestry) and also having the qualification of diploma in computer application. The Food Corporation of India initiated the recruitment process by inviting applications over the posts by combined recruitment for Assistant Grade-III in General Depot, Technical and Account cadres in the FCI-2013. Pursuant to the said advertisement petitioner applied for the post by giving preference as AG-III (General), AG-III (Depot), AG-III (Technical) and AG-III (Accounts) and taking into consideration his candidature the Staff Selection Commission allotted roll number. Learned counsel submits that as per the Schedule of Examination the petitioner participated in the examination. Thereafter, name of petitioner was mentioned in the merit list issued by the Staff Selection Commission. Then, respondents issued posting order of 180 candidates and they did not issue appointment order in favour of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that being aggrieved by the arbitrary and discriminatory act of respondents, petitioner has filed instant petition. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner is having qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) which is the same just like B.Sc. (Agriculture). For that purpose, he has relied upon Annexure P-9 filed along with rejoinder dated 06.11.2013 and submits that as per information received under RTI Act Forestry subject comes under the category of Agriculture and further placed reliance upon order dated 01.04.2015 issued by Indian Council of Agriculture Research and submits that as per the definition of Agriculture it includes "Forestry". It is also submitted that when a specific query Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188 3 WP. No. 7515 of 2014 has been put by the petitioner under RTI to the effect that whether B.Sc. (Forestry) comes under the Agriculture & Allied Sciences, then the answer has been given in remark column as "It is graduate in B.Sc. (Forestry) under Agriculture Science". Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that candidates who have completed their B.Sc. in Horticulture have been appointed and petitioner who has completed B.Sc. in Forestry has been discriminated by the respondents without any legal basis.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submit that as per advertisement petitioner does not possess minimum qualification as prescribed in the advertisement viz. B.Sc. in Agri. or B.Sc. with Botany/Zoology/Bio- Technology/Bio-Chemistry/Microbiology/Food Science or B.Tech./BE in Food Science/Food Science & Technology/Agricultural Engineering/Bio-Technology and petitioner is having qualification of B.Sc. in Forestry which has not been mentioned in the advertisement. It is also submitted that if the wrong benefit has been extended to a candidate who has completed B.Sc. (Horticulture) then petitioner cannot claim negative parity. Petitioner did not challenge the advertisement and allowed himself to participate in the selection process. When he has not been appointed, he cannot be permitted to indirectly challenge the qualification which has been mentioned in the advertisement. Learned counsel for respondents further submit that petitioner is not eligible for the said post because he is not having the minimum qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. It is further submitted that Forestry subject comes under Agriculture but it cannot be equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture) as the Forestry is the part of definition of agriculture as per definition of Agriculture given by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research by order dated 01.04.2015, according to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188 4 WP. No. 7515 of 2014 which as per the Model Act for Agricultural Universities in India (revised 2009) under Chapter-I (Preliminary) in the sub-section (3) of Section 2 (Definitions) that an "Agriculture" includes the discipline of :
S.No. Information Sought Remarks
1. Relevance of Agro-forestry Information is not available.
in B.Sc. Forestry (degree)
2. Definition of Agriculture As per the Model Act for Agricultural Universities in India (revised 2009) under Chapter-I (Preliminary) in the sub-section (3) of Section 2 (Definitions) that an "Agriculture" includes the discipline of :
(a) Natural Resource Management;
(b) Crop Improvement including Production and Protection;
(c) Horticulture;
(d) Veterinary, Animal Science and Fisheries;
(e) Dairy Science and Technology;
(f) Forestry;
(g) Agriculture Engineering and Technology;
(h) Food Technology;
(i) Home Science;
(j) Agri-business Management;
(k) Basic Sciences and Humanities in relation to Agriculture;
(l) Any other subject related to Agriculture.
3. Does B.Sc. Forestry comes It is graduate in B.Sc. (Forestry) under Agriculture under Agriculture and Science.
allied sciences Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188 5 WP. No. 7515 of 2014 and as per the definition, Forestry is one of the parts in the definition of agriculture and it is also mentioned that in Serial No.3 that graduation in B.Sc. comes under Agriculture Science, meaning thereby it is the part of Agriculture Science and thus it cannot be equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture).
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the record, it is gathered that as per advertisement petitioner does not possess minimum qualification as prescribed in the advertisement viz. B.Sc. in Agri. or B.Sc. with Botany/Zoology/Bio- Technology/Bio-Chemistry/Microbiology/Food Science or B.Tech./BE in Food Science/Food Science & Technology/Agricultural Engineering/Bio-Technology and petitioner is having qualification of B.Sc. in Forestry which has not been mentioned in the advertisement. If the wrong benefit has been extended to a candidate who has completed B.Sc. (Horticulture) then petitioner cannot claim negative parity. Petitioner did not challenge the advertisement and allowed himself to participate in the selection process. When he has not been appointed, he cannot be permitted to indirectly challenge the qualification which has been mentioned in the advertisement. Petitioner is not eligible for the said post because he is not having the minimum qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. Perusal of information given by ICAR dated 01.04.2015 sought under RTI Act, 2005, indicates that Forestry subject comes under Agriculture but it cannot be equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture) as the Forestry is the part of definition of agriculture, according to which as per the Model Act for Agricultural Universities in India (revised 2009) under Chapter-I (Preliminary) in the sub-section (3) of Section 2 (Definitions) that an "Agriculture" includes the discipline of :(a) Natural Resource Management; (b) Crop Improvement Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188 6 WP. No. 7515 of 2014 including Production and Protection; (c) Horticulture; (d) Veterinary, Animal Science and Fisheries; (e) Dairy Science and Technology; (f) Forestry; (g) Agriculture Engineering and Technology; (h) Food Technology; (i) Home Science; (j) Agri-business Management; (k) Basic Sciences and Humanities in relation to Agriculture; and (l) Any other subject related to Agriculture and as per the definition, Forestry is one of the parts in the definition of agriculture and it is also mentioned that in Serial No.3 that graduation in B.Sc. comes under Agriculture Science, meaning thereby it is the part of Agriculture Science and thus it cannot be equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture).
6. Thus, it is evident that petitioner does not possess minimum qualification as prescribed under the advertisement and he has not challenged the advertisement before participating in the selection process and when he has not been selected, he cannot be permitted to challenge the qualification which has been prescribed in the advertisement. Since petitioner is not having the minimum qualification as per advertisement, he cannot be appointed on the post advertised.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade And Others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362 has held as under:
"9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188 7 WP. No. 7515 of 2014 rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
10. The fact that an expert committee may have been constituted and which examined the documents before calling the candidates for interview cannot operate as an estoppel against the clear terms of the advertisement to render an ineligible candidate eligible for appointment.
11. The plain reading of the advertisement provides that a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or in medicine with specialisation in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a university coupled with the requisite years of experience thereafter in manufacturing or testing of drugs were essential qualifications. Preference could be given to those possessing the additional desirable qualification of research experience in the synthesis and testing of drugs in a research laboratory.
12. Manufacture has been defined as a process for making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, packing, labelling, breaking up or otherwise treating or adopting any drug or cosmetic with a view to its sale or distribution. Therefore, the experience of testing has to be correlated to the manufacturing process which naturally will be entirely different from the testing carried out in the research and development laboratory before the product is released for manufacture and sale in the market. To say that experience in testing of drugs in a research and development laboratory would be on a par with the testing done at the time of manufacture before sale cannot be countenanced and has to be rejected.
13. The preference clause in Clause 4.7 only means that if a candidate with the required degree qualification and practical experience in the manufacturing and testing of drugs for stipulated period of years has an additional desirable attribute of a research experience in a research laboratory, other things being equal, preference could be given to such a candidate. The term "preference"
mentioned in the advertisement cannot be interpreted to mean that Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188 8 WP. No. 7515 of 2014 merely because a candidate may have had the requisite experience of testing in a research and development laboratory he/she possessed the essential eligibility and had a preferential right to be considered for appointment."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 held in para 26 as follows:-
"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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4188 9 WP. No. 7515 of 2014 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."
Therein also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State is entitled to prescribe the qualification as a condition of eligibility and judicial review is not permissible to expand the ambit of the prescribed qualification. Similarly, equivalence or non-equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be decided 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 to determine and not for the court. The absence of a requirement of a higher qualification being absent, cannot presuppose acquisition of a lower qualification. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
9. In view of foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
10. Ex. consequenti, petition being sans substratum is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM