Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 216 (MP)

Rakesh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2011-02-14

AJIT SINGH, SANJAY YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J.:- All these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they are similar in nature and were heard together. 2. The Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Patwaris. The appointment was to be made after passing of candidates in a written examination. The advertisement mentioned the requisite qualifications meant for eligibility for examination. Clause 1.8 of Chapter I of the advertisement stated the educational qualifications. According to this clause the candidate appearing for the post of Patwari must have passed Higher Secondary or High School (10 + 2) examination and must also possess 0' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute run by a registered/recognized/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or higher education in computer. 3. The petitioners in all the petitions are graduate in Commerce (B. Com.), Arts (B.A.) or Science (B. Sc.) with Computer as one of the subjects. They had appeared in the examination and were declared selected. But the State Government has declined to appoint them on the ground that they did not possess the minimum educational qualification. The submission of petitioners is that since they have passed higher education in Computer while doing the graduate course, the action of the State Government in not appointing them on the post of Patwari is illegal and arbitrary. 4. The stand of the State Government on the other hand is that the petitioners are merely graduate in Commerce, Arts and Science with Computer Science as one of the subjects and, therefore, they are not eligible. Reason and justification for the same are also given in the return filed by the State Government. 5. During the course of hearing of Writ Petition No,1925/2010(s) before Hon'ble Rajendra Menon, J., at Jabalpur an order dated 22.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1622/2010(s) by a learned Single Judge of the Indore Bench was produced where a petitioner who had passed B.Sc. degree with Computer Science as one of the subjects has been held eligible. Menon, J. found that there was no discussion in that order as to how the qualification prescribed in the advertisement and the qualification acquired by the candidate i.e. B.Sc. with Computer Science as one of the subjects is equivalent or permissible to be in conformity with the advertisement. Menon, J. found that there was no discussion in that order as to how the qualification prescribed in the advertisement and the qualification acquired by the candidate i.e. B.Sc. with Computer Science as one of the subjects is equivalent or permissible to be in conformity with the advertisement. He also took note of the fact that the order did not deal with the stand taken by the State Government in the return regarding ineligibility of the candidates having graduated in Commerce, Arts or Science with Computer Science as one of the subjects. The learned Judge felt the question as to whether the qualification prescribed in the advertisement can be said to be fulfilled by a candidate who is graduate in Commerce, Arts or Science with Computer Science as one of the subjects, an important one, and directed the matter to be placed before Honourable the Chief Justice for its decision by a Division Bench. This is how Writ Petition No. 1925/2010 along with above mentioned connected writ petitions have been referred to us. 6. The educational qualification for appointment to the post of Patwari provided in Clause 1.8 of the advertisement is as follows: A Division Bench of this Court has translated it in Writ Petition No.8802/2009 as under: "1.8 Educational qualifications - Passing of Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) is necessary. In addition, 'O' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute run by a registered/recognized/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or higher education in computer." 7. There is no difficulty in understanding the educational qualification that candidate must have passed Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) examination and also must possess 0' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year Diploma in computer application from an institution run by a registered/recognized/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC. The difficulty arises in the alternative for 0' level certification or diploma in computer application provided by the words "or higher education in Computer". 8. The argument of the petitioners which has found favour with the Indore Bench is that where a person has passed B.Sc. degree with Computer Science as one of the subjects it also satisfies the required alternative qualification of higher education in Computer. 8. The argument of the petitioners which has found favour with the Indore Bench is that where a person has passed B.Sc. degree with Computer Science as one of the subjects it also satisfies the required alternative qualification of higher education in Computer. The submission on behalf of the State Government is that higher education in Computer means one has to have a Computer degree in the field of Computer. It is also submitted that where merely one of the subjects has been Computer Application in a graduate course, the candidate cannot be said to possess higher education in the field of Computer. 9. It is a matter of common knowledge that knowledge of Computer has become so important that even in schools Computer is one of the subjects. But higher education in Computer above 0' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE or Diploma course in our opinion must mean as the State Government submits, a higher degree in Computer exclusively and not a degree in some other subjects in which Computer is one of the subjects taught. The intention in prescribing higher education in Computer in the context of 'O' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE or Diploma as the minimum qualification shows that the object is to appoint persons who are well versed in Computer technology. Higher education in Computer, therefore, means such a degree in which Computer is the exclusive or the main subject and not a graduate degree of Commerce, Arts or Science where Computer Science is one of the subjects. 10. Our this view also finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Kamini, (2007) 5 SCC 519 . In that case, respondent Kamini had passed her B.Sc. (Hons.) in the year 1989 in Chemistry with Zoology. Her main subject in B.Sc. degree was Chemistry along with Zoology and Botany as subsidiary subjects. An advertisement was issued on 21.12.1999 by the Public Service Commission inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer. It was stated therein that the candidate must have qualifications of B.Sc., Zoology with a two years' diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai, or a graduate degree in Fisheries Science (BFSC) from a recognised university or M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management) with Zoology from, the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. It was stated therein that the candidate must have qualifications of B.Sc., Zoology with a two years' diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai, or a graduate degree in Fisheries Science (BFSC) from a recognised university or M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management) with Zoology from, the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. The respondent was called for interview and at that time on closer scrutiny of the mark sheet, it was found that she was not having Honours degree in Zoology. The Commission, therefore, rejected her candidature. Aggrieved, she filed a petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Bench. Her Letters Patent Appeal was, however, allowed by the Division Bench. The Commission challenged the order of Division Bench in the Supreme Court which set aside the order on the ground that respondent had passed B.Sc. with Chemistry as principal subject and Zoology as subsidiary subject and, therefore, she cannot be held qualified for the post advertised. 11. Even otherwise, the question of equivalence of qualifications is a technical matter and it should be presumed that the State Government in not accepting a particular qualification as equivalent to the prescribed has acted on expert advise and, therefore, the State Government's opinion cannot he lightly interfered with. 12. The case decided by the Indore Bench does not refer to the submission made by the State Government as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge referring the matter to the Division Bench for decision. After analyzing the order elated 22.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1622/2010(s) at Indore Bench and submission made by the State Government we accept the meaning of higher education in Computer as submitted by the State Government. 13. We, therefore, do not agree with the submissions made by the petitioners. In our opinion the petitioners who do not hold 'O' level certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year diploma in Computer'ppiication or higher education in Computer as explained by us above do not satisfy the educational qualification as laid in the advertisement. They are, therefore, not eligible for appointment as Patwari. 14. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1925/2010 by referring to Annexure RJ-I have averred that at least three candidates Sangeeta, Sirdha Mangal and Asha Rajendra Kumar named therein who had passed B.Sc. They are, therefore, not eligible for appointment as Patwari. 14. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1925/2010 by referring to Annexure RJ-I have averred that at least three candidates Sangeeta, Sirdha Mangal and Asha Rajendra Kumar named therein who had passed B.Sc. with Computer as one of the subjects have been appointed on the post of Patwari and, therefore, they should also be treated equally. In reply, the learned Government Advocate submitted that although he is not aware of any such appointments and even if some appointments have wrongly been made, the State Government shall review them. On examining Annexure RJ- 1 we find that it is only a list of selected candidates from which no inference can be drawn that the names of candidates occurring therein, particularly Sangeeta, Sirdha Mangal and Asha Rajendra Kumar have, in fact, been issued appointment orders. Moreover, it is well settled that misconstruction of a provision of law in one case does not give rise to a similar misconstruction in other cases on the basis of doctrine of equality and an illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated under the so-called "equality doctrine". 15. For these reasons, the petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.