Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 143 (MP)

Ashish Pratap Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-01-31

ALOK ARADHE

body2013
JUDGMENT : In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 13-2-2008 as well as order dated 20-2-2008 by which their selection to the post of Food Inspector has been cancelled. In order to appreciate the petitioners' grievance, few facts need mention which are stated infra. 2. An advertisement was issued in the year 2007 for recruitment to the post of Food Inspector by the Public Service Commission. In response to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners appeared in the examination and were selected on the post of Food Inspector. However, by orders dated 13-2-2008 and 20-2-2008 they were informed that their selection was cancelled on the ground that they do not possess the requisite qualification which is prescribed in the advertisement as well as in Rule 8 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules") for appointment on the post of Food Inspector. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while referring to Rule 8 (c) of the Rules submitted that expression "Graduate in Engineering" includes the Degree in Agricultural Engineering as well. Learned Counsel has invited attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalay as well as the communication issued by Indian Council for Agricultural Research. It is urged that from the aforesaid documents, it is evident that the Degree under the faculty of Agricultural Engineering is a part of Agricultural Sciences, and Agricultural Engineering is considered as one of the disciplines under the Agricultural Sciences. It is also covered under the Engineering Subjects. It is further submitted that subject of agricultural is taught in 11 disciplines and, therefore, the action of respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground they do not have the qualification which is prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules is patently arbitrary. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Chandmkala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2012) 3 SCC 129 . 4. On the other hand, learned Government for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that in the advertisement as well as in Rule 8 (c) of the Rules, the expression "Graduate in Agricultural Engineering" has been used. State of Rajasthan and others, (2012) 3 SCC 129 . 4. On the other hand, learned Government for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that in the advertisement as well as in Rule 8 (c) of the Rules, the expression "Graduate in Agricultural Engineering" has been used. It is further submitted that if Rule 8 (c) of the Rules is read in its entirety it is apparent that the Bachelors' Degree in Agricultural Engineering is not included as qualification under Rule 8 (c) of the Rules. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the Degree of Bachelor of Technology (Agricultural Engineering) has been notified by the Central Government as the equivalent qualification for the purpose of appointment as Food Inspector. It is further submitted that the employer is the best judge with regard to the question of interpretation of the qualification prescribed for the post and the Court cannot interfere with the decision taken by the employer unless the same is shown to be per se arbitrary or irrational. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that the University grants Degree in three disciplines in Agricultural Engineering, viz., Bachelor Degree in Agriculture as well as Degree in Agricultural Engineering, Bachelor Degree in Veterinary & Animal Husbandry and in other disciplines as well. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted that Agricultural Education is offered as a subject in 11 disciplines in Under Graduate Level and Agricultural Engineering is one of them. 6. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. In Bihar Public Service Commission and others Vs. Kamini and others, (2007) 5 SCC 519 , it has been held that in the field of education, the Court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a candidate possesses requisite qualifications should better be left to a recruiting agency as it has to consider the suitability of a candidate to be appointed according to its need. [Also see : Maheshwari Prasad and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2012) 5 SCC 439 ]. It is well-settled in law that the mode of recruitment, qualification and criteria of selections are the matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. [Also see : Maheshwari Prasad and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2012) 5 SCC 439 ]. It is well-settled in law that the mode of recruitment, qualification and criteria of selections are the matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Though the aforesaid decision of the employer is subject to judicial review, the Court will be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the exercise of discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the employer in such matters. [See : Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 ]. It is equally well-settled legal proposition that it is for the Appointing Authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The Courts and Tribunals can neither prescribe the qualification nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. [See : (2011) 9 SCC 645 ] 7. In the backdrop of aforesaid settled legal position, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant extract of Rule 8 (c) of the Rules, which reads as under :- "Qualification for Food Inspector. - A person shall not be qualified for appointment of Food Inspector unless he - *** *** (c) is a Graduate in Science with Chemistry as one of the subjects or is a Graduate in Agriculture or Public Health or Pharmacy or in Veterinary Science or a Graduate in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or is a Diploma Holder in Food Technology or Dairy Technology from a University or Institution established in India by Law or has equivalent qualifications recognised and notified by the Central Government for the purpose." 8. From close scrutiny of Rule 8 (c) of the Rules, it is apparent that even the subject in Graduation has been specified in specific discipline has also been mentioned. In the aforesaid context, if the expression "Graduate in Agriculture" is read, it leaves no iota of doubt that the same means Bachelor' s Degree in Agriculture and would not include B. Tech Degree in (Agriculture Engineering), which is a subject taught in "Agriculture". In the aforesaid context, if the expression "Graduate in Agriculture" is read, it leaves no iota of doubt that the same means Bachelor' s Degree in Agriculture and would not include B. Tech Degree in (Agriculture Engineering), which is a subject taught in "Agriculture". The expression "Bachelor Degree in Agriculture" is more comprehensive than the expression "B. Tech. Degree in Agriculture Engineering" as "Agriculture Engineering" is one of the disciplines taught in the subject "Agriculture". The Secretary of Department of the Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of Madhya Pradesh has also filed an affidavit stating that B. Tech. Degree in Agriculture Engineering is a Degree in Engineering and, therefore, the same cannot be treated to be a Graduation in "Agriculture". The Court while interpreting the qualification prescribed by the recruiting agency has to take into account the intention of the recruiting agency also while laying down the conditions of eligibility. [See : G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University and others, (2002) 2 SCC 712 ]. The petitioners admittedly hold the Degree of Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering. The certificate issued by the University only shows that Degree covered under the faculty of Agriculture Engineering is a part of Agricultural Sciences and the Degree of B. Tech (Agricultural Engineering) is considered equivalent to B. Tech Agricultural and Food Engineering. The certificate issued by Indian Council of Agricultural Research shows that Agricultural Engineering is a discipline under the Agricultural Sciences. The aforesaid documents are of no assistance to the petitioners. The petitioners do not possess the Degree in Agriculture, but B. Tech Degree in Agriculture Engineering, which cannot be equated with the Degree in Agriculture. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Chandrika Trivedi (supra), is of no assistance to the petitioners as in the aforesaid case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the expression "equivalent" must be given reasonable meaning which means that there is some degree of flexibility or adjustment which does not lower stated requirement. However, in the instant case, the petitioners claim that they have the requisite qualification as they are Graduate in Agriculture. 9. In view of the preceding analysis, 1 am of the opinion that petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification prescribed under Rule 8 (c) of the Rules as they are not Graduate in Agriculture, but hold B. Tech Degree in Agriculture Engineering. 9. In view of the preceding analysis, 1 am of the opinion that petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification prescribed under Rule 8 (c) of the Rules as they are not Graduate in Agriculture, but hold B. Tech Degree in Agriculture Engineering. 10. In the result, 1 do not find any merit in the writ petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.