Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 738 (JK)

Meera Sharma & Anr. v. J&K SSB & Ors.

2012-11-30

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2012
1. Vide Advertisement Notice 09 of 1997 dated 24.10.1997, the respondent No. 1-Board invited applications for various posts including one post of Sericulture Assistant required to be supplied to the Department of Sericulture. Educational qualification prescribed for the said post was graduate in Natural Science with PG Diploma in Sericulture from any recognized Institute of Central Silk Board. In Schedule-A of Jammu and Kashmir Sericulture (Subordinate) Services Rules, 1979, minimum qualification for direct recruit for the post of Sericulture Assistant is as recorded above. Selection of respondent No.2 as against the said post is challenged by the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Natnoo would contend that respondent No.2 was not eligible because she does not possess the PG diploma in Sericulture. Further, he contended that her qualification of M. Sc Sericulture has been equated With diploma in Sericulture, therefore, she should not have been awarded 30 points for higher qualification i.e. M.Sc. in Sericulture. 3. Mr. Sharma learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that respondent, firstly, has done graduation in Natural Science and then M. Sc in Sericulture Technology course which admittedly is superior than diploma. The minimum qualification as prescribed against the post does not debar a candidate having superior qualification. Secondly, respondent No.2 possessing qualification i.e. M. Sc in Sericulture Technology Course, pre-supposes PG diploma in Sericulture, therefore, it is not a question of equating higher qualification with the basic qualification. Higher qualification of M. Sc in Sericulture Technology course as per criteria is entitled to be awarded 30 points. He also contended that respondent No. 2 has been appointed after proper selection and her appointment has not been challenged. In absence of challenge to appointment, this petition is rendered in-fructuous. 4. Considered the rival submissions. 5. Qualification prescribed in accordance with the rules for the post of Sericulture Assistant is minimum as quoted above, therefore, respondent No 2 possessing higher qualification cannot be said to be ineligible even if qualification prescribed would have been only qualification even then M. Sc Sericulture in Technology would presuppose possessing PG diploma in Sericulture. Considered the rival submissions. 5. Qualification prescribed in accordance with the rules for the post of Sericulture Assistant is minimum as quoted above, therefore, respondent No 2 possessing higher qualification cannot be said to be ineligible even if qualification prescribed would have been only qualification even then M. Sc Sericulture in Technology would presuppose possessing PG diploma in Sericulture. In this context, controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment captioned Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission decided on 13.03.2002 in Case No.2194, 2200 of 2002 wherein it has been observed that if a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. 6. Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Bangalore vide letter dated 15.06.2001 has issued clarification at the request of respondent No.2, wherein it has been made clear that two years M.Sc. Sericulture Technology course organized at CSR & T1, Mysore, affiliated to University of Mysore is higher than PG Diploma course. The certificate awarded through University of Mysore is valid and recognized. 7. Higher qualification i.e. M.Sc. in Sericulture Technology Course has been awarded to respondent No.2 by Mysore University. Position of it being higher qualification than diploma is not open to question, therefore, it can be safely concluded that respondent No.2 possesses not only minimum qualification but also higher qualification. 8. Respondent No.1 (Board) in its objection has clearly indicated the criteria for selection which reads as: Weightage to basic qualification : 50 points Weightage to higher qualification and weightage to experience 30 points Viva Voce 20 points Total 100 points 9. The respondent No.2 (Board) has clearly indicated the merit position of three candidates, i.e. petitioners and respondent No.2, which is reproduced as:- Academic qualification Tech. qualification Mks obtained Weightage 50 points Addl. Points Viva Total points Petitioner No.1 B.Sc/M.Sc PG Diploma in Sericulture 623/1100 28.332 - 13.66 41.98 Petitioner No.2 B.Sc/LL.B -do- 717/1100 32.59 - 15.66 48.25 Respt. No.2 B.Sc M.Scin Sericulture 1069/165C 32.39 30.00 11.33 73.72 10. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner No.1 that she has not been awarded 30 points for higher qualification is found to be correct because respondent No.2 has been awarded 30 points for the higher qualification. No.2 B.Sc M.Scin Sericulture 1069/165C 32.39 30.00 11.33 73.72 10. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner No.1 that she has not been awarded 30 points for higher qualification is found to be correct because respondent No.2 has been awarded 30 points for the higher qualification. Petitioner No.1 even if awarded 30 points for higher qualification i.e. for possessing degree of M. Sc in Zoology would in total secure 71.98 points whereas respondent No.2 secured 73.72 points so again petitioner No.1 would be inferior in merit than respondent No.2. Furthermore, appointment of respondent No.2 has not been challenged at all. 11. For the reasons stated above, this petition is found without any merit, as such, dismissed along with CMA No.2677/2003.