1. For the post of Range Officer Grade-I the prescribed qualification in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules of 1970 (for short Rules of 1970) as amended by SRO 3 dated 05.01.1994 is B.Sc. (Forestry) or its equivalent from any University recognized by Indian Council of Agriculture and Research. 2. Class V of the Schedule appended to the Rule of 1970 provides the qualifi cation and mode of recruitment to the post of Range Officer which is reproduced as under: Class V Category C Grade 825-1240 (pre-revised) Designation Range Officer Qualification for direct recruitment B. Sc Forestry or its equivalent from any University recognized by the Indian council of Agricultural Research. Method of recruitment (1) 30% by direct recruitment from amongst the persons having passed Rangers qualifying examination (written and viva voce) to be held by the J&K Public Service Commission. 3. This is the qualification which has been notified in the Advertisement Notice whereunder applications were called from eligible candidates for seeking consid eration for being selected and appointed on the post of Range Officer Grade-I (Forest). Admittedly, the petitioners are possessed of qualification of graduation with Forestry as one of the subjects and are also possessed of qualification of M.Sc. (Forestry). The petitioners responded to the notification issued by J&K Public Service Commission and for the reason that the petitioners were not possessed of B. Sc. (Forestry) qualification were excluded from selection process which con strained them to file the writ petition wherein they sought quashment of the Notification dated 08.09.2010 and prayed for issuance of direction to the respon dents to permit them to participate in the selection process on the basis of their qualification, viz., B. Sc. Degree with (Forestry) as one of the subjects and M. Sc (Forestry) Degree. 4. The Court on 24.11.2010 directed the respondents-Public Service Commis sion to permit the petitioners to take the examination at their own risk and respon sibility. The respondents-Public Service Commission filed reply affidavit/objections. Initially, petitioner no. 1 filed supplementary affidavit and at later point of time petitioner no. 3 filed supplementary affidavit and at later point of time petitioner no. 3 filed supplementary affidavit. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court directed the respondents-Public Service Commission to produce the result of the petitioners before the Court. Petitioner no. 3 was found to have qualified for interview. Petitioner no.
3 filed supplementary affidavit and at later point of time petitioner no. 3 filed supplementary affidavit. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court directed the respondents-Public Service Commission to produce the result of the petitioners before the Court. Petitioner no. 3 was found to have qualified for interview. Petitioner no. 3 was ordered to be subjected to interview for assessing his merit and suitability. The Court, however, qualified the order by providing that by directing the respondents-Public Service Commission to call petitioner no. 3 for interview would not confer any special status on him and final result will depend upon the determination of the issue of eligibility. 5. Mr. C. M. Koul, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner(s) is not only possessed of academic qualification of B. Sc. with (Forestry) as one of the subjects but is also possessed of degree of M. Sc. in (Forestry) and as such, is eligible in terms of the Rules and the Advertisement No tice. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner(s) being possessed of the higher qualification than the prescribed qualification, in fairness and in equity, he cannot be declared to be ineligible, thus, depriving him to seek consideration for being selected and appointed on the post of Range Officer Grade-I as such act would mean violating the Constitutional Guarantee available to him under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel, while referring to his supplementary affidavit, submitted that in identical circumstances, another candidate was not only recommended by the Public Service Commission but was appointed by the competent authority on the post of Range Officer Grade-I. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner(s) cannot be subjected to discrimination by not giving him same treatment which has been given to other similarly circumstanced persons. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, referred to and relied upon the judgments of this Court in cases S. Gurmeet Singh & ors. v. State and others reported in 2008 (1) JKJ 68 HC, Mehmooda Bano & ors. v. State of J&K & ors. (SWP No. 112/2012 Decided on 19.09.2012), Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 919 , Satpal Sharma v. State of J&K & ors 2008 (1) JKJ 77 (HC) and Surinder Singh Jamwal and another v. State of J&K & ors, 2010 (2) JKJ 527 (HC). 6.
(SWP No. 112/2012 Decided on 19.09.2012), Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 919 , Satpal Sharma v. State of J&K & ors 2008 (1) JKJ 77 (HC) and Surinder Singh Jamwal and another v. State of J&K & ors, 2010 (2) JKJ 527 (HC). 6. Mr. D. C. Raina, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-Pub lic Service Commission, submitted that the petitioner(s) is ineligible in view of the qualification prescribed by the Rules of 1970 and the Advertisement Notice. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection process in pursuance to the interim orders passed by the Court. Learned counsel also submitted that equivalence of qualifications cannot be deter mined by the Court and it falls within the domain of the expert bodies to return a finding to the equivalence of academic/technical degrees. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, referred to the cases titled P.M. Latha and another v. State of Kerala and others, 2003(3) SCC 541 , K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) SCC 512 , Sheikh Muzaffar Rashid v. High Court of J&K & ors. 2010 (1) SLJ 308:2010 (1) JKJ HC-148, Bashir Ahmad Mantoo v. State of J&K 2009 (2) JKJ HC-86 : 2011 (1) SLJ 196 and submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In order to settle the controversy raised in this petition it becomes necessary to look at the functions and duties to be discharged by the three principal organs of the State created by the Constitution. The Division Bench of this Court in case titled Ab. Qayoom v. M. A. Chesti and ors. reported in 2009 (Suppl.) JKJ 222 (HC) has explained the functions of three organs of the State in the following manner: "16. The people of this country have given to themselves the Constitution, which Constitution in its legal and philosophical scheme has clearly and specifically delineated the frontiers of three important organs of the State viz, executive, legislature and judiciary. Every organ of the State is charged with definite duty by and under the Constitution, and every organ is duty bound to obediently and faithfully follow the mandate of the Constitution to secure the purpose and goals underlying Constitution. 17.
Every organ of the State is charged with definite duty by and under the Constitution, and every organ is duty bound to obediently and faithfully follow the mandate of the Constitution to secure the purpose and goals underlying Constitution. 17. The judiciary in the three organs of the State with the advancement of time has assumed perceptible importance in the affairs of State. This organ of the State is charged with sacred duty to preserve and protect the basic structure and basic features of the Constitution. The institution of judiciary is performing delicate duty of doing the balancing act between different organs of the State. Our constitution on the one side is loaded with funda mental rights available to an individual and on the other side is founded on the bed-rock of achieving the goals of maintaining and preserving the rule of law. The arbitrary, mala fide and unjust exercise of power by Executive organ of the State is frowned upon by constitutional courts and such actions are struck down in exercise of its Constitutional powers. Our Constitution has made our country sovereign, democratic and republic State and any assault by any authority to undermine the basic features of the Constitution are to be repelled with full vigor and complete force. 18. The three organs of the State, being principal pillars of our democratic set up have to respect each other by working within defined boundaries. Any effort to transcend the Constitutional barriers will have the affect of destroying the basic structure of the Constitution and the mutual collision may result in subverting the very Constitution itself. The three organs of the state are thus, duty bound to exhibit extreme caution, care and restrain in the exercise of their power and authority. The three organs of the State in our constitutional scheme cannot afford to tread the path of collision as consequences thereof can be catastrophic. The executive is duty bound to follow the directions, orders and judgments of the court of law. Any streak of Executive authority's defiance may usher the state into an an archical situation." (emphasis supplied) 8. The Division Bench of this Court in case Farooq Ahmad Ncngroo v. State of J&K and others 2012 (3) JKJ HC-382 (LPA no.
The executive is duty bound to follow the directions, orders and judgments of the court of law. Any streak of Executive authority's defiance may usher the state into an an archical situation." (emphasis supplied) 8. The Division Bench of this Court in case Farooq Ahmad Ncngroo v. State of J&K and others 2012 (3) JKJ HC-382 (LPA no. 125/2012 Decided on 23.08.2012) has stated as under: "In our constitutional scheme not only jurisdiction but functions of three organs of the State, viz., executive, legislature and judiciary are delineated. Every organ of the State has to maintain diehard discipline in its function ing to ensure that it does not transgress its limits and usurp the powers and functions of one or other organ of the State. These organs of the State are like the creature of nature viz stars/planets, and have to strictly tread the path which has been delineated for them. Any deviation from natural course would result in collision of these organs of the nature and the consequences would be catastrophic. Likewise in democratic state like ours in which functioning of different organs of the State is regulated by the Constitution, any effort to breach the frontiers of other organs of the State would definitely have catastrophic effect on the body politic. The duty of the courts of law is to ensure that the other organs of the State function in accordance with the mandate contained in the Constitution and other laws. Further duty of the courts is to interpret the laws made by legislature as also the subordinate legislations. Under the guise of the interpreting laws, the courts cannot, however, assume unto themselves the functions of the legislature and start writing Statutes/laws, which cer tainly, is the function of the legislature. The function of Constitutional Courts is to interpret laws and in the first place construe them in a. manner which would save them from rigour of provision of constitution." (empha sis supplied) 9. Likewise, a Division Bench of this Court in case Yash Bhashin v. State and others 2012 (3) JKJ HC-685 (WPPIL no. 20/2011 Decided on 10.09.2012) has reiter ated the aforementioned view of the Court as under: "We the people of India" have given to ourselves the Constituent, from the bosom of which are born three principal organs of the State viz., Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
20/2011 Decided on 10.09.2012) has reiter ated the aforementioned view of the Court as under: "We the people of India" have given to ourselves the Constituent, from the bosom of which are born three principal organs of the State viz., Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. In view of the mandate contained in the Constitu tion, all the three organs of the State have to function within the frontiers delineated by the Constitution itself. The legislature has to legislate the laws and the executive, which is answerable to the legislature, has to implement the said laws. Amongst others, the principal and fundamental functions of the Courts are to interpret the laws and resolve the disputes between the litigating parties, which disputes are brought before them." 10. To be clear on facts, it requires to be reiterated that the qualification prescribed by the Rules of 1970 as also by the Advertisement Notice for the post of Range Officer Grade-I (Forest) is B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any University recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. This is the qualification prescribed by the Statutory Rules and Advertisement Notice for the post of Range Officer Grade-I. 11. Enacting laws and Rule making falls within the province of the Legislative wing of the State. The employer, after taking into consideration all the aspects of a particular post provide for the qualification which a candidate must possess for seeking consideration for being selected and appointed on the particular post. The fixing of eligibility qualification which includes academic/technical qualification, certainly fall within the domain of the employer. The Constitutional Courts have powers to test the action of the State and authorities on the touch stone of law. One of the important jobs of the Constitutional Courts is to interpret the laws which include the Rules made by the competent authority. However, under the guise of interpretation of laws, the Courts cannot step into the shoes of the Legislature/Executive and substitute its own views by replacing the view of the other organs of the State and legislate law. The Courts can, however, declare the law to be uncon stitutional and unenforceable. The Courts can fill the gaps occurring "between the law as it is and the laws that may be." The Courts can also bridge the gaps to make a law meaningful and purposeful.
The Courts can, however, declare the law to be uncon stitutional and unenforceable. The Courts can fill the gaps occurring "between the law as it is and the laws that may be." The Courts can also bridge the gaps to make a law meaningful and purposeful. The courts, however, definitely cannot them selves provide for eligibility qualification for making a candidate eligible for a particular post that being domain of Rule making authority and not that of courts. 12. It is in the aforementioned backdrop the issue raised in this petition would require to be determined. 13. The petitioner(s) is possessed of B. Sc. Degree with (Forestry) as one of the subjects and is also possessed of M.Sc. Degree in (Forestry). These degrees, admit tedly, are not the qualifications prescribed by the Rules of 1970 and the Advertise ment Notice. The B. Sc. (Forestry) in itself is a complete course. Had the B.Sc. with (Forestry) as one subject been equivalent to that of B. Sc (Forestry) then the Rule making authority in its wisdom would have definitely provided 'B.Sc. with (For estry) as one subject' also as eligibility qualification for the post of Range Officer Grade-I. Being possessed of B. Sc. with (Forestry) as one of the subjects, it cannot be said that the petitioner(s) is possessed of the degree of B.Sc. (Forestry). The petitioner(s) thus is not possessed of the eligibility qualification as prescribed by the Rules of 1970 and the Advertisement Notice for the post of Range Officer Grade-I. 14. It would next require to be ascertained as to whether the petitioner(s) can still be declared to be eligible candidate as he is possessed of M. Sc. degree in (Forestry). In most of the cases, a candidate who is possessed of superior/higher degree in a particular discipline may enable the Court to stretch its wings of interpretation by presuming that the candidate is possessed of the inferior degree as well. This type of presumption, however, cannot be of universal application. In present times, there are number of courses in which a candidate may possess superior/higher qualification without having attained the inferior qualification in the same discipline. Take the example of the case of petitioner(s). The B.Sc. degree with one subject as Forestry makes him eligible for attaining the superior/higher degree of M.Sc. in Forestry notwithstanding the fact that he is not possessed of the degree of B.Sc. (Forestry).
Take the example of the case of petitioner(s). The B.Sc. degree with one subject as Forestry makes him eligible for attaining the superior/higher degree of M.Sc. in Forestry notwithstanding the fact that he is not possessed of the degree of B.Sc. (Forestry). In his case, thus, there is no scope of presuming that he is possessed of lower degree of B. Sc. (Forestry). So it is to be presumed that he is not possessed of degree of B. Sc. (Forestry), a full-fledged course in the discipline of (Forestry). 15. In the aforementioned backdrop, the petitioner(s) though possessed of superior/higher degree of M. Sc. (Forestry), in contradistinction, thereto is not possessed of inferior degree of B. Sc. (Forestry) but is having B. Sc. degree with (Forestry) as one of the subjects. The petitioner(s) in the facts of this case though is possessed of superior/higher degree with M. Sc. (Forestry), is definitely not possessed of the prescribed eligibility qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry). The peti tioner(s) thus is ineligible for seeking consideration for being selected and ap pointed as Range Officer Grade-I. 16. In Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani's case (supra), for the post of Peon educa tional qualification was prescribed as not lower than a pass in the Examination of Standard IV in the Regional Language." In making the selection, the Advisory Committee constituted under the Recruitment Rules had laid four criteria for shortlisting of the candidates. One of the criteria laid was that 'applications of those candidates possessing minimum educational qualification of passing IVth Vernac ular standard and/or educated upto passing of VIIth Standard only should be considered for the interview to the posts of peons and those who have studied above VIIth vernacular standard may not take proper interest in the work of peons and, therefore, should not be called for interview. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the Rule position held that this criteria was illegal as the Rules had provided educational qualification for peons as "not lower than a pass in the Examination of Standard IV in the Regional Language," which, otherwise, would mean that all candidates who were possessed of Standard IV educational qualification or above would be eligible. The expression 'not lower' would mean that pass in the Exami nation of Standard IV in the Regional Language was the minimum educational qualification prescribed.
The expression 'not lower' would mean that pass in the Exami nation of Standard IV in the Regional Language was the minimum educational qualification prescribed. The candidates who were possessed of educational qualification above Standard IV were also eligible for seeking consideration for being selected and appointed on the post of Peons. 17. This judgment on facts is not applicable to the case on hand inasmuch as in view of the Rules of 1970 and the eligibility clause of the Advertisement Notice, B. Sc. (Forestry) is not the minimum qualification prescribed but the 'only' eligibility qualification prescribed by the Rules and Advertisement Notice. The petitioner(s) thus cannot derive benefit from Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani's case. 18. In Gurmeet Singh and others case, at paragraph 10 of the judgment, the qualification prescribed was Diploma in Automobile Engineering which was on the basis of Recruitment Rules held to be minimum qualification for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector and the candidates who were possessed of Degree in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering were held to be eligible for the reason that the Diploma in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering was not the 'only' qualification but was the minimum qualification. It was provided that once minimum qualification is prescribed for filling up of the post any candidates in the same discipline possessed of superior/higher qualification would also be eligible for seeking consideration for being selected and appointed on the post. The selection authority had provided marks for the higher qualification also which further goes to show that though minimum qualification of Diploma was prescribed and candi dates having higher qualifications were also eligible as additional marks were eanviarked for higher qualifications. 19. This case also on facts is distinguishable from the case on hand. In this case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Jyoti K.K. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others, reported in JT 2002 (Suppl. KD 85 HC.
19. This case also on facts is distinguishable from the case on hand. In this case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Jyoti K.K. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others, reported in JT 2002 (Suppl. KD 85 HC. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. has turned on the interpretation of Rule 10(1)(II) of the Kerala Rules which provided as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the special rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post" 20. The case on facts is distinguishable from the case on hand on twin grounds viz., (a) there is no similar Rule as that of Rule 10(a)(II) and (b) B.Sc. (Forestry) is a complete course in itself whereas petitioner(s) has obtained degree of graduation with Forestry as one of the subjects which acquisition of the qualification made him eligible to seek admission in M.Sc. (Forestry). In the facts of this case, it cannot be, thus, presupposed that by holding the Degree of M.Sc. (Forestry) the petitioner(s) is possessed of the degree of B.Sc. (Forestry) as well. 21. Surinder Singh Jamwal's case, on facts, is not similar to the case on hand. In that case, the petitioner sought relief of equal pay for equal work. 22. Similarly, Satpal Sharma's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case it was ruled that a selected candidate has a right to be considered only for the post for which he had applied and not for another post. 23. In Mehmooda Bano and others case, post of Junior Grade Nurse was advertised. Internal page 6 of the judgment would show that the minimum quali fication prescribed was 10+2 or above qualification with Diploma in Nursing from recognized Institution for direct recruitment. Challenge was thrown to the selection of some of the candidates who were possessed of the qualification of B. Sc. Nursing. The writ petition aforementioned was filed challenging the said selection on the ground that the qualification prescribed was 10+2 or above with Diploma in Nursing from recognized Institution for direct recruitment.
Challenge was thrown to the selection of some of the candidates who were possessed of the qualification of B. Sc. Nursing. The writ petition aforementioned was filed challenging the said selection on the ground that the qualification prescribed was 10+2 or above with Diploma in Nursing from recognized Institution for direct recruitment. The Court, while rely ing on Ajay Kumar Uttam's case ruled against the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition. In Ajay Kumar Uttam's case, which is reported in 2010(2) JKJ 757 (HC) the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Drawing Instructor with three years Diploma/two years Draftsmanship in any Branch of Engineering. The Court, while relying on Jyoti K. K.'s case, rejected the contention of the writ petitioners that the selected candidates were not eligible as they were possessed of the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering which was not the prescribed qualifi cation or equivalent to the prescribed qualification. In this case also it was the minimum qualification which was prescribed for the post of Drawing Instructor. The candidates who were possessed of the superior/higher qualification in the same discipline/branch in view of the expression 'minimum qualification' were held eligible for seeking consideration for being selected and appointed on the post of Drawing Instructor. In this case, the 'minimum qualification' and not the 'specific' qualification was prescribed. 24. This case also is distinguishable with the case on hand as the "only and specific" qualification prescribed is B. Sc. (Forestry). 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.M. Latha and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2003) 3 SCC 541 upheld the judgment of the High Court of Kerala to the extent it had ruled that the prescribed qualification for the post of lower primary/upper primary teachers in the Government schools of State of Kerala was Teachers Training Certificate and not B. Ed. qualification. The B. Ed. qualification was not treated as higher qualification than Teachers Training Certificate. It was also ruled that fixing of the eligibility qualification for a post belong to the recruitment policy of the State. The B. Ed. candidates were, thus, held to be not eligible. 26. The Rule making authority has prescribed "specific" qualification viz., B. Sc. (Forestry) for making recruitment to the post of Range Officer Grade-I. This is not the "minimum qualification" prescribed. This Court cannot rewrite the Recruit ment Rules. If M. Sc.
The B. Ed. candidates were, thus, held to be not eligible. 26. The Rule making authority has prescribed "specific" qualification viz., B. Sc. (Forestry) for making recruitment to the post of Range Officer Grade-I. This is not the "minimum qualification" prescribed. This Court cannot rewrite the Recruit ment Rules. If M. Sc. (Forestry) in the facts of this case is held to be one of the prescribed qualifications for the post of Range Officer Grade-I then it would tantamount to legislating the law which is not the function of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another 2010 (5) JKJ SC-679: (1997) 4 SCC 18 at paragraph 6 has held that "an Advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it." The selection/appointing authority is, thus, bound by the qualification prescribed under the Rules and the Advertisement Notice and would not be entitled to accept any other qualification, not prescribed by the Rules and Advertisement Notice as eligibility qualification. 27. The similar treatment sought is not acceptable in the facts of this case. The issue raised was not determined by court and facts are not disclosed as to how and for what reasons the person mentioned in supplementary affidavit was appointed. 28. The issue is required to be considered from yet another angle as well. The candidates who are possessed of M. Sc. (Forestry) degree and who on the terms and conditions of the advertisement notice did not respond to it would be subjected to discrimination if the petitioner(s) claim is upheld. It will be inequitable and unfair as well. 29. The petitioners' claim is required to be rejected on yet another ground, viz., they being ineligible on the terms and conditions of the Rules of 1970 and the Advertisement Notice constitute a different and distinct class than those candidates who in terms of Rules of 1970 and on the terms and conditions of Advertisement Notice are eligible. The Court cannot direct the selection authority to give uniform treatment to persons who are not similarly circumstanced. The right of the eligible candidates who form one class in themselves would be seriously jeopardized. 30.
The Court cannot direct the selection authority to give uniform treatment to persons who are not similarly circumstanced. The right of the eligible candidates who form one class in themselves would be seriously jeopardized. 30. The question of "minimum qualification" as prescribed qualification being not issue involved in this case, no finding can be recorded thereon in this case. 31. For the abovestated reasons, this petition is held to be meritless and is, as such, dismissed