Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kavita And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 27 November, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No.11373 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11373 of 2013
Date of decision:27.11.2014
Kavita & others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana & another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.2/HPSC.
.....
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition impugning the action of respondent No.2 (Haryana Public Service Commission), whereby they have been held ineligible for appointment to the post of Child Development Project Officer (Female) Class-II.
Brief facts that would require notice are that the HPSC (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commission') issued advertisement dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including 22 posts of Child Development Project Officer (Female) Class-II.
As per advertisement, the essential qualifications prescribed for the post were as follows:
"i) M.Sc. Home Science from a recognized university with HARJEET KAUR specialization in Food and Nutrition or Child Development 2014.12.03 03:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.11373 of 2013 -2- with atleast 50% marks.
Or M.A. Psychology with specialization in Child Psychology or MA Child Development and Family Studies with atleast 50% marks.
ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard or Higher Education."
It is the pleaded case of the petitioners themselves that all three of them possess the qualification of M.Sc. (Home Science) with specialization of Human Development and Family Studies and such qualification has been acquired from the Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar.
The petitioners have applied for the post in question. However, their candidature has not been accepted by the Commission in the light of three separate memos carrying even date i.e. 04.09.2012 and placed on record at Annexure P-3 collectively. Perusal thereof would reveal that the petitioners have been held to be ineligible on the premise that they do not possess the essential prescribed qualification as per advertisement.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that in terms of notification dated 06.11.1999 issued by the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar at Annexure P-4, the department of Child Development was renamed as Department of Human Development and Family Studies and accordingly, it is just a case of change of nomenclature. On the strength of such notification dated 06.11.1999 (Annexure P-4), it is sought to be contended that the qualification of M.Sc. (Home Science) with specialization in Human Development and Family Studies has to be treated as equivalent to M.Sc. (Home Science) in subject CWP No.11373 of 2013 -3- of Food and Nutrition or Child Development i.e. the prescribed essential qualification as per advertisement.
Reliance has also been placed by the counsel upon a certificate dated 10.09.2012 at Annexure P-5, wherein the Professor and Head of the Department, Human Development and Family Studies, College of Home Science, Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar has certified that M.Sc./Ph.d. Degree in Child Development is the same as Human Development and Family Studies. Counsel would argue that in the peculiar fact situation of the present case, it is not that the petitioners are seeking benefit of equivalent qualifications but infact possess the same very qualifications that were stipulated in the advertisement.
Per contra, Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel appearing for the Commission would submit that the post in question i.e. Child Development and Project Officer (Female) Class-II is governed by statutory provisions and the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement were para materia to the one contained in the rules governing the service. It is further contended that it would be open for the employer to prescribe qualifications in relation to a particular post and there has to be strict adherence to the same. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate would further argue that it would not be open for this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to delve into the issue of equivalence of qualifications or to classify any other qualification which may be possessed by the petitioners to be the "same qualification" as have been prescribed under the rules/advertisement.
Counsel for the parties have been heard.
It is by now well settled that it is for the employer to prescribe qualifications for appointment to a particular post. Whenever specific CWP No.11373 of 2013 -4- qualifications are prescribed for a post, the incumbent for such post would not be vested with an inherent right to seek the benefit of equivalent or matching qualification in the absence of a clear stipulation inserted in the advertisement indicating the power that the State or the commission as the case may be to consider and appoint such incumbents possessing such qualification. In the advertisement in question, the prescribed essential qualification was M.Sc. (Home Science) from recognized university with specialization in Food and Nutrition or Child Development with atleast 50% marks. The petitioners cannot compel the respondents to treat their qualifications to be equivalent to the one prescribed in the advertisement. In taking such view, this Court would draw support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) SCT 888 and the relevant portion of which reads in the following terms:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the qualifications/degree in Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, is being treated equivalent to the Post Graduate Diploma of the Kurukshetra University. In this regard, he relied upon a letter issued by the Assistant Registrar of Maharshi Dayanad University dated 4.8.2003. This letter is of no help to the petitioner. It is for the employer to prescribe essential qualifications for appointment to a particular post. The Government in its wisdom provided the essential qualifications specifically excluding the expression "or any other course equivalent to the prescribed qualifications." Absence of this clause clearly indicates that the State and the Commission did not desire to appoint people possessing equivalent qualifications. A clause of equivalence as treated for academic purpose may not essentially be true or universally applicable for employment purposes as well. In the field of employment a CWP No.11373 of 2013 -5- specific stipulation should be provided in the rules/instructions and/or the equivalent to the specified qualifications. Nothing has been brought to our notice which vests the respondents with such power in relation to the present advertisement. On the other hand, by very absence of such clause, exclusion of such power is clear. We are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to treat his degree of Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak as a Post Graduate Diploma for the purposed of satisfying the prescribed essential qualifications."
Even the submission raised by the petitioners that the claim is not with regard to an equivalent qualification but in view of the certificate at Annexure P-5, the qualification possessed by the petitioners is the same as has been prescribed in the advertisement is also without merit. A Full Bench of this Court in Som Dutt Vs. State of Haryana & another, 1983 (3) SLR 141, while dealing with the right of the employer to prescribe qualifications for the post has clearly held that in a situation where qualifications are prescribed by statutory rules then the State/recruitment agency would have to proceed in a manner, whereby there is literal or strict compliance as regards qualifications prescribed under the rules. It was further held that such matters as regards academic qualifications would be best left to the experts and the Courts would hesitate to intervene. It was also observed that the qualifications having been laid down in binding statutory provisions then under concept of strict compliance recruitment agency would be entitled to insist that these be meticulously satisfied and the claim as regards other qualifications to be similar or technically higher than the one prescribed would be totally irrelevant.
CWP No.11373 of 2013 -6-
Applying the dictum laid down by the Full Bench decision in Som Dutt's case (supra) and in view of the discussion herein above, this Court does not find any infirmity with the action of the respondent/Commission in having treated the petitioners as ineligible for the post in question.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
November 27, 2014. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? Yes