Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 590 (UTT)

DEEP CHANDRA PANDEY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-12-17

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2014
JUDGMENT V.K. Bist, J. (Oral) The delay of 10 days’ in preferring the appeal is not being opposed, we allow the application for condonation of delay. 2. In the year 2010, the Director, School Education, Dehradun issued an advertisement, whereby applications were invited for the posts of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade for various subjects. Appellant, in pursuance of the said advertisement, submitted his application for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Hindi) which was considered and the appellant was permitted to appear in the written examination. Appellant was declared selected, but at the time of verification of documents, it was found that the appellant was not having graduation degree from a recognized University. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled. Thereafter, final select list was prepared and issued. Appellant challenged the said final select list by filing a writ petition and also prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Hindi). The learned Single Judge found that the writ petitioner (appellant herein) is not graduate from a recognized University, but he has done his Sahitya Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which is not recognized by the State Government or even by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, Roorkee, Hardwar. Thus, he was not qualified as he did not possess the Bachelor’s degree in Hindi from a recognized University on the date of appointment. The learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner cannot be granted any relief and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted before us that, in fact, the appellant is having higher qualification, i.e. M.A. in Hindi and his candidature should have been considered for the post of Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade (Hindi). In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 85 (Jyoti K.K. & others versus Kerala Public Service Commission and others). Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is being reproduced below :- “It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is being reproduced below :- “It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant engineer, degree in electrical engineering of Kerala that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of sub-engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in electrical engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. 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 rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the University or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification same faculty, it becomes clear that the rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification same faculty, it becomes clear that the rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory rules have been published and those rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such rules or make himself aware of the rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of appellants would amount to fraud on the public.” 4. We have considered the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and also perused the judgment cited by him. The Supreme Court judgment was based on Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956, which is being reproduced below:- “Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the qualifications recognised 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.” Thus, we find that Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Rules provides that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. 5. In the present case, the appellant failed to demonstrate that relevant service rule provides consideration of candidates who possess higher qualification. It is admitted fact that Sahitya Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, is not recognized by the State of Uttarakhand. We are unable to take a contrary view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 6. All pending applications stand disposed of.