Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 51 (MEG)

Freestarman Syiemiong v. State of Meghalaya

2013-11-19

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2013
Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, C.J. By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to 6 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Soil and Water Conservation Officer in the Soil and Water Conservation Department of the State of Meghalaya from the date Junior to him in the merit list, were appointed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner obtained a Degree of Bachelor of Science (Hons) Botany in the year 2005 from North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) in First Division. In order to pursue his studies in Agriculture, after completing one year of B.Sc. (Agriculture), the petitioner appeared in the entrance examination of Master of Science Agriculture (M.Sc. Agriculture) held by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and succeeded in getting admission in M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in the academic year 2007-2008 for which Degree of Masters was conferred on him on 25th June 2010 by aforesaid University. 3. State of Meghalaya got advertised 6(six) posts of Assistant Soil and Water Conservation Officer under Soil and Water Conservation Department through the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC) vide advertisement dated 19.11.2010. The writ petitioner was one of the candidates who responded to said advertisement and after undergoing the written test and interview, he was finally selected by the Commission. He stood at Sl. No. 3 in the merit list among of 6(six) selected candidates. It is alleged by the writ petitioner that while other selected candidates were given appointments, he was wrongly denied the same. (This Court in the present writ petition passed an interim order on 29.8.2013 directing the respondents not to fill up 1 (one) post out of the 6(six)posts advertised"). 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 6 on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 6, it has been stated that Degree of B.Sc. (Hons) Botany though makes the writ petitioner eligible for admission in M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, but for that reason he cannot be said to have completed B.Sc. (Agriculture) which was the essential educational qualification for the posts advertised. It is further stated that no Degree of B.Sc. (Hons) Botany though makes the writ petitioner eligible for admission in M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, but for that reason he cannot be said to have completed B.Sc. (Agriculture) which was the essential educational qualification for the posts advertised. It is further stated that no Degree of B.Sc. (Agriculture) was obtained by the writ petitioner from any recognized university and the petitioner can be given appointment only if he produces a certificate of B.Sc. (Agriculture). 5. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 7 to 10, the Secretary of the MPSC has stated that the Degree of M.Sc. (Agriculture) presupposes lower education of B.Sc. (Agriculture). It is further stated in the counter affidavit of said respondents that the petitioner was called for written examination as he was found to possess M.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of aforesaid respondents, it is stated that even in the year 2006 one Shri Charseng Ch. Marak who was only M.Sc. (Forestry) but having no B.Sc. (Forestry) was selected by the Commission and was given appointment by the State in similar situation. 6. First of all, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Annexure 'XVIII' filed with the writ petition which is a letter issued by Prof. & Head, Department of Plant Physiology of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur enclosing a certificate with it. The certificate which is annexed with the said letter dated 11.6.2013 reads as follows:-- TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Shri. Freeslarman Syiemiong was a M.Sc. (Ag.) student of this department during 2005-2008. He has completed all the prescribed deficiency courses of B.Sc. (Ag.) during 2005-2006 which makes him equivalent as B.Sc. (Ag.) before getting registration for major and minor courses of M.Sc. (Ag.) degree programme of Plant Physiology and completed during 2007-2008. He has also submitted a thesis entitled "Physiology of growth biomass partitioning, yield and quality of Isabgol (Plantago ovata Frosk) as influenced by row spacing and nitrogen application" for partial fulfillment of M.Sc. (Ag.) programme and awarded satisfactory grade. He earned 7.75 on 10.00 scale OCGA. JABALPUR-11.06.2013 Sd/- (S. Rao) Professor & Head Deptt. of Plant Physiology J.N.K.V.V., Jabalpur 7. He has also submitted a thesis entitled "Physiology of growth biomass partitioning, yield and quality of Isabgol (Plantago ovata Frosk) as influenced by row spacing and nitrogen application" for partial fulfillment of M.Sc. (Ag.) programme and awarded satisfactory grade. He earned 7.75 on 10.00 scale OCGA. JABALPUR-11.06.2013 Sd/- (S. Rao) Professor & Head Deptt. of Plant Physiology J.N.K.V.V., Jabalpur 7. Attention of this Court is further drawn to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 6 in which the respondent No. 1 has made averment as under:-- 11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the answering respondent begs to state that the appointment of the writ petition has not been rejected as alleged. The matter is under active consideration of the Department once copy of the B.Sc. (Agri) certificate is received from Jawaharlal Nehru Krishti Vishwa Vidyalaya. Jabalpur. 8. On behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 6, it is argued that since the writ petitioner has not fulfilled the condition of minimum educational qualification i.e. B.Sc. (Agriculture), as such he cannot be said to have possessed the necessary qualification. 9. In Jyoti K.K. (2010) 15 SCC 596 in paragraph 9, the Apex Court has made following observations:-- 9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma-holders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree-holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same Faculty, it becomes clear that the Rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. 10. In Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 546 , in paragraph 7, the Apex Court has observed as under:-- Equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the experts were satisfied that the equivalence has already been considered and declared by it. 11. (2001) 8 SCC 546 , in paragraph 7, the Apex Court has observed as under:-- Equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the experts were satisfied that the equivalence has already been considered and declared by it. 11. In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao AIR (1965) SC 491 in paragraph 12, the Supreme Court of India has further observed as under:-- The High Court does not appear to have considered the question as to whether it would be appropriate for the High Court to differ from the opinion of the Board when it was quite likely that the Board may have taken the view that the Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham University, which appellant No. 2 had obtained, was equivalent to a high Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University. This aspect of the questions (sic) purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the Board of experts was satisfied that appellant No. 2 fulfilled the first qualification. 12. From the above position of law, it emerges out that where the Public Service Commission and the University authorities have accepted that the petitioner after he has done Masters in Agriculture, that he is a qualified person who can apply for the post which requires minimum qualification of B.Sc. (Agriculture), this Court should not intervene and sit in their judgment unless there are serious reasons to doubt such a decision. 13. Learned Advocate General contended that from the Degree of M.Sc. (Agriculture) conferred on the petitioner as evident from the copy of the Degree (Annexure V to the writ petition), it appears that the subject of the petitioner was "Plant Physiology", and it cannot be said that he has obtained Degree of all the subjects required to be studied in B.Sc. (Agriculture). 14. I have carefully gone through the papers and considered the submission of the Advocate General. There is no requirement in the advertisement that Plant Physiology is not the required subject for the posts advertised. The petitioner has completed all the prescribed deficiency courses of B.Sc. (Agriculture) during the period 2005-2006 which makes him equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture) (as he had done B.Sc. (Hons) in Botany). There is no requirement in the advertisement that Plant Physiology is not the required subject for the posts advertised. The petitioner has completed all the prescribed deficiency courses of B.Sc. (Agriculture) during the period 2005-2006 which makes him equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture) (as he had done B.Sc. (Hons) in Botany). Thereafter, the petitioner has completed the course of M.Sc. (Agriculture.) in Plant Physiology. 15. In the above circumstances, since the Public Service Commission as well as the recognized university accepts this fact that the petitioner stands as a qualified person, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such decisions. Referring to paragraph 10 of affidavit filed with the writ petition, it is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that at the behest of the unsuccessful candidates, petitioners appointment got held up by making false complaint that the petitioner is only B.Sc. (Botany) and does not fulfill the qualification. 16. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons discussed above, this Court finds that respondents No. 1 to 6 have erred in not giving appointment to the petitioner even after his qualification is accepted by the Public Service Commission and he got through the written test and the interview. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents No. 1 to 6 are directed to consider without further delay the issuance of the appointment letter to the petitioner as recommended by MPSC (subject to Medical Test and Character Verification if any required) without disturbing the seniority of the petitioner vis-à-vis the candidates below in the merit to the petitioner in the select list who had been given appointments.