Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 101 (GUJ)

Balvantbhai D. Barot v. State of Gujarat

2004-02-23

K.A.PUJ

body2004
JUDGMENT : K.A. Puj, J. 1. to 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. Mr. D.C. Raval, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, in both these Petitions, has mainly challenged the order/communication dated 27-01-1989 on the ground that the criteria laid down in the advertisement with regard to educational qualification and the experience on the basis of Rule 3 (b)(1) of Gujarat Educational Service Class-I (Administrative Branch) and Rule 2 of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) (Amendment) Rules, 1973 are illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and hence, they are required to be struck down. He has further submitted that the said Rules resort to invidious and irrational classification and reject the qualified persons like the petitioner on the basis of micro distinctions that are not relevant to the requirements of the post. He has further submitted that present appointment pursuant to the advertisement in question was to be made in the Gujarat Education Service Class-I (Administrative Branch) and as far as the qualification in the field of education is concerned, it was merely insisting for a Bachelor Degree or an equivalent Degree or Diploma. There is no requirement that it must have been obtained with 1st Class or 2nd class. But as far as the companion qualification of Graduate or Post-Graduate Degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Law or Agriculture is concerned, it provides either for the First Class Bachelor Degree or for Second Class Master's Degree. He has, therefore, submitted that a person like the petitioner in S.C.A. No. 1120/89 who has the Bachelor's degree in education but who has the Master's degree in Arts with Pass Class was rendered unqualified by these rules, though this was not a post in the field of Arts, Science, Commerce, Law or Agriculture. He has, therefore, submitted that the fact that one was Second Class in M.A. or Pass Class in M.A. would have no bearing with the objective of the selection to the post in the field of education. He has, therefore, submitted that the fact that one was Second Class in M.A. or Pass Class in M.A. would have no bearing with the objective of the selection to the post in the field of education. The classification of the candidates, therefore, between those who have Master's Degree with Second Class in the field of Arts, Science, Commerce, Law or Agriculture, and those who have Pass Class, is not a valid classification and it does not promote any relevant goals, and it has no rational nexus with the object of classification, i.e. selecting best people to work in the field of education with the requisite qualification in that field. Such a classification in fact is irrational and arbitrary inasmuch as the degree or diploma in the field of Education is given lesser value than the value attached to the qualification attained in the other field which may be only incidentally useful and relevant. The impugned Rules are, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. He has further submitted that even if the above classification is assumed to be valid, it is still inconsequential and it can only be described as unconstitutional micro classification based on micro distinctions. For this purpose, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Others, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1 wherein it is held that "a classification found on substantial difference which distinguishes persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has found the classification of degree holders on the one hand and the diploma holders on the other hand to be a valid classification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has warned that carrying such distinction too far would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner did possess the qualification of M.A., was held unqualified merely because he did not have a Second Class in M.A. but has Pass Class and that too when he was not seeking appointment in the field of Arts, Commerce, Science, Law or Agriculture. Though the petitioner did possess the qualification of M.A., was held unqualified merely because he did not have a Second Class in M.A. but has Pass Class and that too when he was not seeking appointment in the field of Arts, Commerce, Science, Law or Agriculture. He has, therefore, submitted that the irrationality and absurdity of Rule 3 of the impugned Rules writ large on the face of it and hence, they are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Mr. Rawal has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohmmad Shujat Ali v. Union of India and Others, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1631 wherein it is held that "Mini-classification based on micro distinctions are false to our egalitarian faith and only substantial and straightforward classifications plainly promoting relevant goals can have constitutional validity. To overdo classification is to undo equality." 9. Mr. Rawal has further submitted that similarly Rule 2 of 1973 Amendment Rule is also irrational and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that under the relevant statutory recruitment Rules, the requirement is that one should have seven years experience in the field of teaching, supervision or administration. The petitioner in S.C.A. No. 1120 of 1989 acquired the qualification of B.Ed, in the year 1978 and was having teaching and administrative experience of at least 10 years. But the respondent has proceeded on the footing that seven years of teaching or administrative experience can be counted only after he attained the full qualification. Thus, the petitioner attained the qualification of M.A. in the year 1986 and hence, the petitioner was treated unqualified as far as the requirement of experience was concerned. Mr. Rawal has, therefore, submitted that this was also irrational and absurd criteria. The petitioner was supposed to work in educational service and he acquired the required educational qualification in the year 1978. But by an artificial way of counting the experience, the petitioner's experience was counted only from 1986 when he obtained the Degree of M.A. which was not the primary qualification required in the field of education. Such a construction of Rule 2 of the 1973 Amendment Rules was, therefore, clearly irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Such a construction of Rule 2 of the 1973 Amendment Rules was, therefore, clearly irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The unconstitutionality of Rule 2 of the 1973 Amendment Rules is obvious from the fact that it classifies the candidates who obtained the experience before and after certain date. Such a classification does not promote any rational goals and has no nexus with the object of classification. The object of the classification is to have persons with certain kind of teaching or administrative experience and that very kind of experience was possessed by the petitioner and still he was held to be unqualified merely because he did not acquire that experience before certain date. In support of his submission, Mr. Rawal has relied on the observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 30-09-1975 in S.C.A. No. 1412 of 1975 wherein it is held that "it is just and proper if 7 years experience is computed from the date of obtaining B.T./B.Ed. degree. This will attract more persons for the post and give impetus to the officers in Government service who have obtained higher degree like Ph.D. The result of this strict rules of computing the prescribed length of service in that the candidates like the petitioners who have gained experience after having passed B.T. or B.Ed. examination are excluded." He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned Rule and the impugned communication are clearly illegal, unconstitutional and liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. to 11. xxx xxx xxx 12. Ms. Archana Rawal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has submitted that the challenge to the impugned Rules framed by the Govt. examination are excluded." He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned Rule and the impugned communication are clearly illegal, unconstitutional and liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. to 11. xxx xxx xxx 12. Ms. Archana Rawal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has submitted that the challenge to the impugned Rules framed by the Govt. concerned, she relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Sundareswarro v. Government of A. P. & Others, (1996)8 S.C.C. 234 wherein it is held that "framing of rules being the legislative Policy, it cannot be said that the rule is ultra vires or arbitrary." She has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheshrao Janguji Bagde v. Bhaiyya S/O. Govindrao Karate and Others, 1991 Supp.(1) S.C.C. 367 wherein it is held that "unless the context otherwise demands, it should be taken as "experience after acquiring the minimum qualifications required" and, therefore, necessarily will have to be posterior to the acquisition of the qualification. It is true that in case of promotion the same interpretation may not be just or warranted and for this reason, the court has made it clear that it would depend upon the relevant provisions as also the particular type of experience which is required." 13. After having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after considering their rival submissions in the light of the requisite criteria laid down in the advertisement based on statutory Rules, this Court is of the view that challenge made to the impugned Rules is not sustainable. On the basis of the advertisement issued on 16.01.1988, the petitioners have applied. The criteria laid down in the said advertisement was based on the statutory Rules referred to herein above. The petitions have not initially challenged the said rules. It is only when they were not called for personal interview and were informed by letter dated 27-01-1989 that they did not possess the prescribed educational qualification and/or experience, the present petitions were filed before this Court. This Court has not granted any stay against the implementation of the said Rules. It was only observed by this Court that any selection that will be made by the G.P.S.C. for the posts in question would be subject to the result of the present petition. This Court has not granted any stay against the implementation of the said Rules. It was only observed by this Court that any selection that will be made by the G.P.S.C. for the posts in question would be subject to the result of the present petition. Both these petitions were ordered to be posted on 03-07-1989. More than 13 years have gone and still the petitions could not be taken up for final hearing. In the meanwhile, rules have been implemented and posts have also been filled in. Since this being the policy decision taken by the Govt. prescribing the requisite criteria for educational qualification and experience, the Court is rather slow in interfering in such legislative policy unless it is mala fide or for certain extraneous considerations. 14. It is not the case of the petitioners in the present petitions that such a policy decision was taken by the State Government on the basis of certain extraneous consideration. If the petitioners do not possess the requisite criteria and on that ground, they are not called for personal interview, they should not find fault with the Rules which are framed by the State Government. The Rules are framed keeping in mind the object which is sought to be achieved. It cannot be said that the requisite criteria laid down in the Rules for the purpose of educational qualification has no bearing on the selection of the posts which ware advertised. As far as the period to be reckoned for the purpose of requisite experience is concerned, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down that it is to be considered from the date of the minimum educational qualification which is acquired by the candidate and hence, it cannot be counted from the period prior to the acquisition of the said educational qualification. 15. Taking overall view of the matter and considering the nature of the relief prayed for by the petitioners in these two petitions, which is against the legislative policy framed by the State, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter by exercising its extraordinary, plenary, prerogative and equitable writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged in each of the petition without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.