Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

b)Paragraph 7 of the notification dealing with the equivalent qualification is referred to. It is stated that the claim of equivalence in the subject by the candidates would be subject to the decision of the Equivalence Committee constituted as per G.O.Ms.No.441, P&AR Department, dated 20.12.1993 and the decision of the Government. The counter affidavit also refers to Annexure IV of the prospectus relating to Post Graduate Equivalent subjects.

c)As per the notification, dated 28.2.2012, written competitive examination was conducted on 27.5.2012. Based on the same, certificate verification for the provisionally selected candidates were conducted on 3.8.2012. The revised list of provisionally selected candidates was published on 18.10.2012. Subsequently, certificate verification was conducted on 30.10.2012 and 31.10.2012 and final provisional select list was published on 10.12.2012.

32.I have considered the submissions made by either side.

33.The issue that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to whether the candidature of the petitioners would be rejected on the ground that the degree which they possessed was declared equivalent to a degree that was required for appointment to the post, subsequently by way of the Government Order on equivalence?

34.Before 2012, it is admitted that recruitment for the post of Graduate Assistants as well as recruitment for the post of Post Graduate Assistants were done based on the employment exchange seniority alone. The recruiting agency, i.e., Teachers Recruitment Board used to call for a list of eligible candidates in certain ratio from the employment exchange (the ratio changed for different years). The Employment Exchange used to send the list to the TRB. Based on the list sent by the employment exchange, the TRB used to send call letters to candidates to appear for certificate verification. The candidates were directed to produce various certificates including the certificate on educational qualification.

51.Further more, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners did not possess the degree when they made applications. The issue is as to whether the degree obtained by them is equivalent to the degree required for the post. It has to be decided by the Equivalence Committee. The Equivalence Committee also decided and the Government accepted the same in all cases. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 can have no application.

52.Likewise, the other case is Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Chander Shekhar and another reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 of no avail to the respondents. In that case, the qualification prescribed as on the last date for submitting the application for the post of Junior Engineer in the service of the Jammu and Kashmir State was a pass in B.E Civil examination. The advertisement was dated 9.1.1982 inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineer. The last date for submitting the applications was 15.7.1982. 33 persons who were selected for the post did not possess B.E. qualification as on 15.7.1982 and they appeared for the examination. The result was published on 21.8.1982. The interview was held on various dates commencing from 24.8.1982. But, their selection was upheld by the High Court and the matter came to the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that their selection was bad. However, the Apex Court refused to interfere with the selection on the ground that much water had flown.

8.Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner as qualified for appointment and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

73.The other judgment dated 11.2.2013 in W.P.No.2554 of 2013 of this Court also squarely applies to the facts of this case. In that case also, the petitioner applied for the post of P.G. Assistant in English pursuant to the notification dated 28.2.2012. She obtained B.A. English with Computer Applications. She passed M.A English. She also possessed B.Ed. She was selected and an appointment order dated 12.12.2012 was issued by the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary). However, by a later communication dated 18.1.2013, the said order was cancelled on the ground that she studied B.A. English with Computer Application, which is not equivalent for the post to which she was appointed.