Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

to enquire into the matter as to how and in what manner the Registrar has issued the equivalence certificate without following the set procedure and norms for issuance of Equivalence certificate.

VI) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondent no. 1 University for producing the record of selection for perusal of Hon'ble Court."

2025:HHC:28829-DB

16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through records of the case.

.

17. It is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as submissions made at the behest of respondents that private respondents though did not possess requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, but yet were permitted to participate in selection process by the Selection Committee, which while scrutinizing the applications filed by various candidates including respondents No. 2 and 3, who were called upon to produce equivalence certificate showing therein that M.Sc. Biotechnology is equivalent to M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology. Aforesaid respondents produced equivalence certificate issued by respondent No.4 thereby suggesting that M.Sc. Biotechnology is equivalent to M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology, as a result thereof, respondents No. 2 and 3 came to be declared eligible for participation in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Biotechnology).

27. At the cost of repetition, it is once again reiterated that this court has no intention whatsoever to substitute the opinion of the expert committee, with regard to its decision of considering M.Sc.

(Biotechnology) at par with M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology), but once eligibility criteria provided under the advertisement nowhere leaves any room for Selection Committee to alter/interpret academic qualification, prescribed in the advertisement, it ought not have ventured to call upon the private respondent to produce equivalence certificate. Any decision taken by the expert committee to call upon the private respondent as well as other similarly situate persons to provide equivalence certificate virtually amounts to changing the essential qualification, which was not within its competence. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 555, relevant paras whereof read as under:

42. Leaving everything aside, equivalence certificate issued by the Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University could not be considered 2025:HHC:28829-DB especially when no procedure was envisaged in the University Statute for determination of issuance of equivalence certificate issued by .

another University. As per para 2.6 (2) (iii) (Annexure P-23) under Chapter II, it is only academic council, which can decide essential qualification, meaning thereby, no other authority than academic council can determine and decide the issue of equivalence but in the case at hand, no such procedure was adopted nor decision was taken by the academic Council hence, the certificate issued by the Registrar, could not have been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee.