Bombay High Court
Ms. Neelam Rama Kamble vs Thr Union Of India, Thr. Secty. Dept. Of ... on 24 November, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
wp.5383.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 5283/2016
Ms. Neelam Rama Kamble
Aged about 25 years, occu: Nil
R/o House No. 3266, K-37
New Kailash Nagar, Manewada Road
Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur. ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Financial Services
(Ministry of Finance), 3rd floor,
Jeevandeep Building, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110 001.
2) The Director
Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection, IBPS House, 90 feet
D.P. Road, Near Thakur Polytechnic of Western Express
Highway, P.B.No. 8587, Kandiwali (East)
Mumbai- 400101.
3) The Assistant General Manager
Canara bank, Recruitment Cell
Human Resources Wing,
head Office, Jeevan Prakash Building
113/1, J.C. Road, Bangalore 560002 (Karnataka). ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri R.N.Ghughe, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.A.Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri C.S.Samudra, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri A.T.Purohit, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...........................................................................................................................
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:19:54 :::
wp.5383.16
2
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS .SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 24 November, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the communication of the respondent no.3 - Assistant General Manager of the Canara Bank, dated 29.6.2016, cancelling the provisional appointment of the petitioner on the post of Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of eligibility. The petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent no.3 to issue the appointment order to the petitioner.
3. In pursuance of an advertisement published by the respondent no.3 through the respondent no.2, the Director, Institution of Banking Personnel Selection, the petitioner applied for the post of Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I. As per the advertisement, an Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-
I was required to possess a four-year degree (Graduation ) in Agriculture/ Horticulture/Animal Husbandry/Veterinary Science/Dairy Science/ Agriculture Engineering/Fishery Science/Pisciculture/ Agri. Marketing & Cooperation / Cooperation & Banking/ Agro Forestry. By a corrigendum ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:19:54 ::: wp.5383.16 3 issued by the respondent no.2 on 16.1.2016, four degrees in following disciplines were included in the educational qualification: (i) Forestry, (ii) Agricultural Bio-technology, (iii) Food Science and, (iv) Agriculture Business Management. According to the petitioner, the petitioner posseses a four-year degree from a recognised University in Food Science (Food Technology) and, therefore, the petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner was selected and after verifying the necessary certificates, the petitioner was served with an allotment letter of provisional appointment. When the petitioner went to join on the post of Agriculture Field Officer, Scale-I in the respondent no.3 Canara Bank, the petitioner was informed vide impugned communication dated 29.6.2016 that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as the petitioner possesses the degree in Food Technology and not Food Science. The petitioner has challenged the communication in the instant petition and has sought the relief as aforesaid.
4. Shri R.N. Ghuge, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the degree awarded to the petitioner in the year 2011 by the Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani is a degree in Food Technology, the very same course for which the degree of Food Technology was granted in favour of the petitioner, was a degree course meant for a degree in Food Science till the year 2007-08. It is stated that the nomenclature of the same degree course was Food Science till the year 2007-08 in the Agriculture ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:19:54 ::: wp.5383.16 4 University, and from the year 2007-08 the nomenclature was changed to Food Technology. It is stated that the said fact is clearly depicted from Annexure P-1 wherein, the nomenclature of the degree in 'Food Science' was changed as 'Food Technology' since the year 2007-08. It is stated that since the petitioner was admitted to the course after the nomenclature was changed, the petitioner has secured degree in Food Technology, which is indeed a degree in Food Science as it was known earlier till the year 2006-07. It is stated that the respondent no.2 has rightly included the degree in Food Technology while prescribing the eligibility criteria for subsequent recruitment processes. It is stated that it is apparent from the documents annexed to the petition that the petitioner has the requisite qualification as she possesses the degree in Food Science which is now termed as Food Technology, after 2007-08. It is stated that the action on the part of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in cancelling the allotment letter issued in favour of the petitioner is bad in law.
5. Shri Samudra, the learned learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that since the degree in Food Technology was neither included in the advertisement nor the corrigendum, as the essential qualification, the petitioner cannot claim that the degree in Food Technology should be considered to be degree in Food Science.
6. Shri Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:19:54 ::: wp.5383.16 5 submitted that the Nagpur Bench would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition as any dispute arising out of the advertisement issued by the respondent no.2 including the recruitment process, would be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Court situated in Mumbai. It is stated that in the application form, the petitioner has mentioned that the petitioner possesses a degree in Food Science though she possesses a degree in Food Technology. It is stated that the petitioner has misled the respondent nos.2 and 3 by mentioning so. It is stated that it would be within the domain of the respondent no.3 to reject the application of the petitioner and the decision of the respondent no.3 would be final and binding on the petitioner. It is stated that when the qualifications are prescribed in an advertisement, it would not be for the Court or the other authorities to interpret whether a particular qualification could or could not have been considered as a requisite qualification, while considering the eligibility of a candidate.
7. We find, on a perusal of the advertisement and the corrigendum issued thereto, that Food Science was one of the degrees that could have been possessed by a candidate desirous of seeking appointment on the post of Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I. The Marathwada Agriculture University that had granted the degree in Food Technology to the petitioner was conducting the degree course in Food Science since past several years. In the year ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:19:54 ::: wp.5383.16 6 2006-07 the very degree course in Food Technology was termed as Food Science and the nomenclature of the said course was changed to Food Technology since 2007-08. As the petitioner was admitted to the course that was earlier known as the degree course in Food Science, of which only the nomenclature is changed, as could be seen from the information supplied by the Marathwada Agriculture University, the petitioner knew that the petitioner possesses a degree in Food Science which is known as a degree in Food Technology. Rightly, the respondent no.2, for the very next recruitment process, has included the degree in Food Technology as a qualifying degree for appointment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I. We do not find that the petitioner has misled either the respondent nos.2 or 3 by mentioning in the application form that she possesses a degree in Food Science. This is not a case where the petitioner is seeking a declaration that the degree in Food Science is equivalent to a degree in Food Technology. It is the case of the petitioner that degree in Food Technology and degree in Food Science is one and the same degree and is known by two different names during two different periods. The very same degree course was known as a degree course in Food Science till the year 2006-07 and the same course is known as a degree course in Food Technology from 2007-08. The respondents have not disputed this position and have also not disputed the correctness of the communication issued by the Marathwada Agriculture University ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:19:54 ::: wp.5383.16 7 explaining that the nomenclature of the degree of Food Science was changed from the academic session 2007-08 and the very same degree course is known as a degree course in Food Technology. In the circumstances of the case, the respondent no.3 committed a serious error in cancelling the allotment letter issued in favour of the petitioner. While holding that the action of the respondent no.3 is bad in law and while granting the prayers made by the petitioner in the instant petition, we reject the objection raised on behalf of the respondent no.3 that this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in this writ petition as it pertains to the recruitment process. The recruitment process was completed and the petitioner was also served with an allotment letter. If the petitioner was provisionally appointed, it would be a case, akin to a case of cancellation of the appointment of an employee. We, therefore, overrule the objection raised on behalf of the respondent no.3 to the jurisdiction of this Bench to entertain and decide the writ petition. We hereby hold that the petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I and the respondent no.3 had wrongly cancelled the allotment letter and refused to permit the petitioner to work as an Agriculture Field Officer, Scale-I vide communication dated 29.6.2016.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:19:54 ::: wp.5383.16 8 is directed to issue an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner within two weeks.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:19:54 :::