Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 456 (ALL)

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.

2004-03-03

B.S.CHAUHAN, GHANSHYAM DASS

body2004
JUDGMENT Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.—This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated27.11.2003, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned single Judge. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellants had obtained a certificate of Prashikshan Praman Patra issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh as equivalent to Basic Teacher’s Certificate (B.T.C.) conducted by the State of Madhya Pradesh and on that post the petitioners-appellants had sought appointment by submitting their application to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in District Banda, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.8.1996, wherein the requisite qualifications had been B.T.C., S.T.C., J.T.C. or T.C. 3. Appellants’ case had been that the certificate possessed by them had not been recognised by the State of Uttar Pradesh equivalent to the either of the said qualifications, thus, this Court should hold that both qualifications are equivalent and issue direction to the State Authorities to recognise the said qualifications equivalent to the requisite qualification for the post. 4. The learned single Judge after examining the record and affidavit filed by the parties recorded the finding of fact that certificate possessed by the petitioners-appellants had never been recognised by the State of U.P. and they were not eligible for the posts. More so, as by a specific order dated 11.8.1997, the criteria of granting and acknowledging other/certificates obtained by the candidates from outside States which had been earlier equivalent to B.T.C. had been abrogated, they did not possess the requisite qualifications. 5. The learned single Judge also rejected the submission made on behalf of the appellants petitioners that as they had obtained the certificate prior to the order dated 11.8.1997, and de-recognition cannot be with retrospective effect. 6. It is settled legal proposition that qualifications must be currently prescribed as on the date of advertisement. This view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Yogendra Singh, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 226, wherein it has been observed as under : “No candidate who does not possess the currently prescribed qualification and he possesses the qualification prescribed earlier, can be said to be qualified ........... Every candidate, who aspires to fill any vacancy, must possess the educational qualification that are then prescribed.” 7. Every candidate, who aspires to fill any vacancy, must possess the educational qualification that are then prescribed.” 7. More so, what should a prescribed qualification for a particular post, is to be determined by the Statutory Authority/State Government taking a policy decision which should not be interfered lightly by the Courts, as the decision is taken by the Expert Committee, unless there are compelling circumstances to do so or malice is proved. 8. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in University of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491 , examined the issue and observed as under : “Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following them, are challenged before the Courts, normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts..............It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be.” 9. In State of Bihar v. A. K. Mukherjee, AIR 1975 SC 192 , while dealing with a similar issue, the Apex Court held that opinions of the expert on the basis of which the State takes a decision “cannot be espied with a suspicious eyes by the Court. Governmental ways may not be familiar for forensic processes but for that reason, they cannot be suspected.” 10. In Chancellor and another v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar and others, AIR 1994 SC 579 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the concerned Selection Committee which invariably consists of Experts on the subjects relevant to the selection.” 11. The Court categorically held that Courts/Tribunals should not ordinarily interfere with the decisions of the academic authorities in such matters. 12. In Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, AIR 2000 SC 1039 , while deciding a similar case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier judgment in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, AIR 1970 SC 1269 , reiterated the same view. 13. 12. In Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, AIR 2000 SC 1039 , while deciding a similar case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier judgment in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, AIR 1970 SC 1269 , reiterated the same view. 13. Similar view has been reiterated in Dental Council of India v. Subharti K. K. B. Charitable Trust and another, 2002 (4) AWC 2916 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 2151 . 14. In Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health, Delhi Administration Services, (1997) 11 SCC 687 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the issue of eligibility remains in the realm of policy decision of other Constitutional functionaries and it must be left to the proper authorities having requisite knowledge in that subject as to what should be the requisite qualification for a particular post. 15. In State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun and others, AIR 2002 SC 2642 , after considering the issue at length, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “..............The prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” 16. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned single Judge, and the appeal is liable to be rejected. 17. Even otherwise, select list prepared in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 12.8.1996, stood exhausted long back and the vacancies so advertised had also been filled up, no relief can be granted at such a belated stage. 18. It is settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the Select List. Vide J. Ashok Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, JT 1996 (3) SC 320 ; State of Bihar and others v. Mohd. 18. It is settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the Select List. Vide J. Ashok Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, JT 1996 (3) SC 320 ; State of Bihar and others v. Mohd. Kalimuddin, AIR 1996 SC 1145 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra, 1996 (3) AWC 1284 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 2173 ; Sushma Suri v. Government of National Capital of Delhi, (1999) 1 SCC 330 and State of U. P. and others v. Ram Sarup Saroj, (2003) 3 SCC 699. It has been held therein that if the selection process is over, select list had expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the Court at a belated stage. 19. The selections have been made. All the vacancies have been filled up. No successful candidate has been impleaded as party. Petition itself was liable to be rejected for want of necessary parties. Vide Prabodh Verma v. State of U. P., AIR 1985 SC 167 ; Ishar Singh v. Kuldeep Singh, 1995 (Supp) 1 SCC 179 ; Bhagwati and others v. Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana and others, 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC 663 ; Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and others, (1996) 6 SCC 419 ; J. Jose Dhanapaul v. S. Thomas and others, (1996) 3 SCC 587 ; Arun Tiwari and others v. Zila Manasavi Shikshak Sangh and others, AIR 1998 SC 331 ; Azar Hasan and others v. District Judge, Saharanpur, 1998 (3) AWC 2024 (SC) : (1998) 3 SCC 246 ; Ram Swarup and others v. S. N. Maira and others, (1999) 1 SCC 738 ; Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur and others, (1999) 8 SCC 287 ; Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others, (2000) 2 SCC 606 ; Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P.) Ltd. and others, (2002) 5 SCC 481 and M. P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit v. Indian Coffee Workers’ Co-operative Society Ltd. and others, (2002) 9 SCC 204 ; Ramrao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and others, (2004) 2 SCC 1976. 20. Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.