Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 750 (PAT)

Sanjay Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2000-05-30

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2000
Judgment 1. The sole writ petitioner in this case wants the respondents to consider the petitioner as an eligible candidate for the post of Fisheries Extension Officer on the basis of his qualification and for this purpose he had made a prayer in this writ application that the respondents should hold that the degree of M.Sc. (Fisheries Management) granted to the petitioner by Central Institute of Fisheries Education (for sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as CIFE), Bombay as equivalent to degree of M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management) granted by the same Institute. On the same lines he has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to include M.Sc. (F.M.) degree also as one of the requisite qualifications for the post of District Fishery Officer or Fisheries Extension Officer (hereinafter referred to as FEO) in the State of Bihar and to give to the petitioner weightage for making over such candidates who have done M.Sc (IFAM) or Diploma in Fisheries Science from CIFE, Bombay or Bachelor of Fisheries Science from any recognised University. 2. The Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as BPSC) vide its advertisement no. 85/98 published in local dailies on 21.6.1998 invited application for the 15 posts of FEO out of which 13 posts are for different reserved categories and two posts are for general category candidates. The petitioner of this case admittedly belongs to general category. As per said advertisement (An-nexure-8), the essential qualification for the post in question is as follows : B.Sc. (Zoology) with, from CIFE, Bombay two years Diploma course in Fisheries Science OR M.Sc. (IFAM) or Bachelor in Fisheries Science (B.F.Sc.) degree from any recognised University. The petitioner, on the basis of a certificate issued by CIFE, Bombay dated 19.9.1994 (Annexure-3) treated his degree of M.Sc. (FM) as equivalent to degree of M.Sc. (IFAM) and Diploma in Fisheries Science both offered by CIFE, Bombay and accordingly, applied for the post of FEO in response to the advertisement contained in Annexure-8 and subsequently he filed the present writ application when he came to know that BPSC is issuing interview letters only to those candidates who have obtained Diploma in Fisheries Science or M.Sc. (IFAM) from CIFE, Bombay. 3. In the writ petition the petitioner has pleaded not only the" equivalence between his degree of M.Sc. (FM) with the degree of M.Sc. (IFAM) from CIFE, Bombay. 3. In the writ petition the petitioner has pleaded not only the" equivalence between his degree of M.Sc. (FM) with the degree of M.Sc. (IFAM), both issued by CIFE, Bombay but has further shown by eference to the number of optional and compulsory courses for both the degrees and also their respective Syllabus that his iegree of M.Sc. (FM) is superior to the degree of M.Sc. (IFAM) and that for naking the degree of M.Sc. (FM) equivalent to degree of Bachelor in Fisheries Science, the students who had me their B.Sc. from general stream were made to undergo one year deficiency course in the CIFE, Bombay. For this purpose, the petitioner has placed reliance upon a certificate from CIFE dated 3.8.1998 (Annexure-5). 4. The essential qualification in terms of the advertisement (Annexure-8) has already been noticed above. It will be useful to notice the essential qualification for the same post of FEO as provided in column 7 of the schedule of the Recruitment Rules. The said qualifications are as follows : B.Sc. (Zoology) with certificate of two years Diploma in Fisheries Science course from CIFE, Bombay OR Bachelor of Fisheries Science from any recognised University (B.F.Sc.) it is obvious that in the advertisement the degree of M.Sc. (IFAM) from CIFE, Bombay has been added to the essential qualifications mentioned in the statutory rules. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nutan & others V/s. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) PLJR 789, to submit that the addition of degree of M.Sc. (IFAM) from CIFE, Bombay as one of the requisite qualifications was challenged by some of the petitioners in the aforesaid case of Nutan and others (supra) and selection of some of the respondents having that degree was under consideration in that judgment. (IFAM) from CIFE, Bombay as one of the requisite qualifications was challenged by some of the petitioners in the aforesaid case of Nutan and others (supra) and selection of some of the respondents having that degree was under consideration in that judgment. In paragraph 25 of the said judgment, the Division Bench while considering this aspect of the case noted the stand of the BPSC and after placing reliance upon certificate of Joint Director of CIFE dated 19.9.1994 which was Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of private respondents in that case and is Annexure-3 to the present writ application, held that in view of certificate granted by CIFE, Bombay itself regarding equivalence of the M.Sc (Inland Fisheries of Administration and Management) a qualification possessed by the said respondents, there was no doubt regarding eligibility of such respondents for their recruitment. The relevant part of paragraph 25 of the said judgment is as follows : "It has been stated in the counter affidavit of the Commission that the said two respondents and a few others had represented to the Chairman regarding their eligibility for appointment on the basis of their qualification, namely, Masters Degree in Inland Fisheries Administration and Management from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Bombay. The matter was considered by the Commission with the advice of the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Government of Bihar, and the Director of Fisheries on January 6, 1994 and it was decided that such candidates, who have obtained Masters Degree in Indian Fisheries Administration and Management from the Central Institute of Fisheries, Bombay, and have also done B.Sc. in Zoology are eligible for recruitment. Our attention was also drawn to the certificate granted by the Joint Director of the said Central Institute of Fisheries Education dated September 19, 1994, marked An-nexure-A to the counter affidavit of the private respondents in CWJC 6624 of 1994. It would be useful to refer to the contents of the said certificate as hereunder : it is certified that the M.Sc. (Fisheries Management) & M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management) conducted by this Institute are degrees awarded by the Deemed University of CiFE established under section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. These degrees have been recognised by the Govt. of India for the purpose of recruitment to post and service under Central Government and they are equivalent to B.F.Sc. (Fisheries Management) & M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management) conducted by this Institute are degrees awarded by the Deemed University of CiFE established under section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. These degrees have been recognised by the Govt. of India for the purpose of recruitment to post and service under Central Government and they are equivalent to B.F.Sc. offered by this Institute which is also recognised by the Ministry of Education vide O.M.No. 18- 17/62-T.S. dated 14.12.65 for the purpose of recruitment under Central Government as an alternative qualification to M.Sc. Degree in Biological Sciences, (underlined by me). In view of the certificate granted by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE) itself regarding equivalence of the qualification of M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management), a qualification possessed by the said respondents, to is little room for doubt as regards their eligibility for their recruitment." 6. The contention on behalf ol the petitioner in this case is quite simple if the certificate of CIFE dated 19.9.1994 (An-nexure-3) formed the basis for equivalence of the degree of M.Sc. (IFAM) with the requisite qualification prescribed under the statutory rules and such equivalence was accepted by the respondents as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nutan and others (supra) then there may be no rational basis for denying similar equivalence to the degree of M.Sc (Fisheries Management) awarded to the petitioner by CIFE, Bombay when the petitioners degree is also categorically mentioned in the certificate dated 19.9.1994 (Annexure-3) as equivalent to degree of D.F.Sc. or M.Sc. (IFAM). 7. The relevant part of the certificate (Annexure-3) has been quoted in paragraph 25 of the Division Bench judgment extracted above and that fully supports the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 8. It is useful to note here that after noting that position largely on the basis ol judgment in the case of Nutan & others (supra), this Court by an interim order dated 15.6.1999 allowed the petitioner to appear in the interview scheduled for 21.6.1999 but the publication of result was stayed until further orders. Some of other candidates interviewed by the Commission prayed for intervention and thev were added as party respondents. In view of interim stay of result of interview and the nature of the case, the matter was heard on various dates for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 9. On 9.2.2000. Some of other candidates interviewed by the Commission prayed for intervention and thev were added as party respondents. In view of interim stay of result of interview and the nature of the case, the matter was heard on various dates for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 9. On 9.2.2000. when the matter was being heard on merits on the point of equivalence of degrees claimed by the petitioner as well as on another point raised on behalf of the petitioner in paragraph 15 of his rejoinder to the counter affidavit that in this very transaction the Commission has entertained applications of persons like Alok Kumar Roy and J.B.Tiwari although they held the same degree of M.Sc. (FM), CIFE, Bombay, learned counsel for the BPSC advanced a technical submission that the matter of equivalence between the degrees should first be decided by the concerned officers of Government of Bihar. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that not allowing the equivalence claimed by the petitioner will amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and denial of equality to the petitioner. This Court agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the Commission and adjourned the matter for the petitioner to make a representation in the matter and the Secretary and the Director of the concerned Department were directed to take a final decision within a fixed time. 10. The subsequent stand of the respondents is that the Department has written letters and sought for views of CIFE, Bombay as well as of Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi. According to respondents, the opinion obtained from the aforesaid authorities will have to be placed before the State Cabinet for decision and if equivalence is accepted then necessary amendment in the statutory rules will have to be made for future transactions and it is not certain as to how long this process may take. Thus, on the crucial issue of equivalence between the concerned degrees claimed by the petitioner, the stand of the State of Bihar and its officers is that such equivalence can be allowed only by amendment in the statutory rules and that being the prerogative of the Government, no relief can be granted to the petitioner until the rules are amended in accoraance with law. The stand of the BPSC is that in the aforesaid matters it can only abide by decision of the appointing authority, the State of Bihar. The intervenors, however, have taken the stand that equivalence is a matter on which the statutory rules are silent and hence, this aspect of the matter can be decided by executive decision and this case should not wait indefinitely for decision of the State Government and amendment of rules. 11. From relevant part of the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Nutan & others, as extracted earlier, it is clear that on the earlier occasion the decision with regard to equivalence of the degree of M.Sc (IFAM) from CIFE, Bombay was taken by the Secretary and the Director of the Department concerned and the Division Bench after noticing the contents of certificate of CIFE dated 19.9.1994 upheld such decision of the officials and found the respondents having equivalent degree to be eligible for recruitment. In the present case, besides the certificate dated 19.9.1994 (Annexure-3) the petitioner has placed reliance upon certificate dated 3.8.1998 (Annexure-5) and has also brought on record the latest opinion of the CIFE, Bombay dated 8.3.2000 (Annexure-R/2) and the opinion of Indian Council of Agriculture Research dated 1.5.2000 (Annexure-A/2) to show that both the aforesaid authorities to whom the respondents have themselves written for opinion, have clearly opined in favour, of the petitioners claim. 12. In the light of the aforesaid materials, it is clear that petitioners claim regarding equivalence of his degree of M.Sc. (FM) with that of M.Sc. (IFAM) (both issued by CIFE, Bombay) has to be accepted. As a fact, the respondents have also not denied such equivalence on merit but they have taken a technical stand which is difficult to be appreciated specially in view of facts appearing in the case of Nutan & others and the judgment of the Division Bench in that case. 13. It is relevant at this stage to consider the submission of learned counsel for the BPSC advanced on the basis of second supplementary counter affidavit filed on 27.3.2000 in which the stand of the Commission is that petitioner was not found eligible for being called to face the interview on the ground that he did not have a degree of B.Sc. (Zoology) Hons. (Zoology) Hons. Thus, their objection to the eligibility of the petitioner is not on the ground that he has a degree of M.Sc. (FM) but on the ground that B.Sc. (Zoology) degree is not sufficient because as per past practice only candidates having B.Sc. (Zoology) Hons. plus Diploma/M.Sc. from CIFE have been held to be eligible. Learned counsel for the Commission accepted the position that the statutory rules require only the degree of B.Sc. (Zoology) and not B.Sc. (Zoology) Hons. In view of such admitted position, in the view of this Court, the Commission cannot be permitted to declare the petitioner ineligible for interview by raising the requisite qualification that finds mentioned in the statutory rules. 14. It has already been found that petitioners degree of M.Sc. (FM) is equivalent to the degree of M.Sc. (IFAM) granted by the CIFE, Bombay and hence, this Court is constrained to hold that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in refusing the equivalence claimed by the petitioner and in treating the petitioner ineligible for the post of FEO. So far as petitioners claim for greater weightage in the matter of marking vis-a-vis other candidates having M.Sc. (IFAM) degree or Diploma in Fisheries Science from CIFE, Bombay or Bachelor of Fisheries Science from any recognised University is concerned, no arguments were advanced in support of such prayer and in the facts of the case, such prayer is fit to be rejected. 15. This writ application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above with direction to the concerned respondents to treat the petitioner as a candidate having requisite qualification for the post of FEO and accordingly, publish the results of the interview already held, forthwith without any further delay. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.