Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 333 (HP)

Anshul Sharma v. State of H. P.

2015-04-10

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission invited applications for filling up of the posts of lecturers in Automobile Engineering, Class-1 (Gazetted), in terms of advertisement notice dated 4.2.2012, Annexure P2. The petitioner alongwith others applied for the same. After scrutinizing the qualification certificates and other credentials, the candidates were called for the written examination on 31.5.2012, vide Annexure P-3. The petitioner and other candidates qualified the written examination and they were called for the interview. After conducting the interview on 24.7.2012, Public Service Commission found the petitioner and other two candidates suitable and accordingly made the recommendation for their appointment. Respondents No. 1 and 2 refused to appoint the petitioner on the ground that he was not having requisite qualification, constraining him to file the present writ petition. 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the reply and contended that the petitioner was not having requisite qualification. It is further contended that they constituted a Committee, which submitted its report Annexure R-3, and found that the qualification of B. Tech. in Automobile Engineering is not equivalent to the qualification of the B. Tech. in Mechanical Engineering. 3. The Public Service Commission has chosen not to file the reply. Thus, the averments contained in the writ petition stand admitted by the Commission. 4. The moot question is whether respondents No. 1 and 2 were within their power to refuse appointment to the petitioner? In order to determine this issue, it is necessary to reproduce relevant extract of the advertisement notice herein: “Item No. I.(B)……… Essential Qualification:- 1st Class Bachelor’s Degree in Automobile Engineering/ Technology or equivalent……” 5. The advertisement notice specifically provides that a candidate must be having 1st Class Bachelor’s Degree in Automobile Engineering/Technology or equivalent. 6. The Public Service Commission, after examining the documents and the qualification certificates of the petitioner, found him eligible and permitted him to appear in the written examination. He made the grade in the written examination and successfully made the grade in the interview also. 7. The Public Service Commission scrutinized the application and found all the papers in order and made recommendation for selection. How can the respondents make ‘U’-turn and deny him the appointment. 8. The petitioner has placed on record equivalence certificate issued by the Lovely Professional University, Annexure P6, which clearly indicates that B. Tech. in Automobile Engineering is equivalent to B. Tech. How can the respondents make ‘U’-turn and deny him the appointment. 8. The petitioner has placed on record equivalence certificate issued by the Lovely Professional University, Annexure P6, which clearly indicates that B. Tech. in Automobile Engineering is equivalent to B. Tech. in Mechanical Engineering. It is apt to reproduce paras 1 and 2 of the said certificate herein. “(i)This is in reference to your advertisement for lecturer in Automobile on HPPSC website. The program B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering (Lateral Entry) from Lovely Professional University (LPU) has been mapped against B. Tech in Automobile Engineering (Lateral Entry) from JawaharLal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (Annexure-1). The overall Curriculum of B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering (Lateral Entry) offered by LPU is at par with B. Tech in Automobile Engineering (Lateral Entry) offered by JawaharLal Nehru Technological University. More than 75% of courses of B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering (Lateral Entry) from Lovely Professional University(LPU) and B. Tech in Automobile Engineering (Lateral Entry) from JawaharLal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad are same. (ii) As you know LPU has been established by the State Legislature of Govt. of Punjab vide Act No. 25 of 2005 (Annexure-2), it has also been recognized by UGC under Section 2 (f) of UGC Act, 1956 by notification NO. F.9-10/2006 (CPP- 1) and is included in the list of universities maintained by UGC (Annexure-3). Besides, LPU is also a member of Association of Indian Universities (AIU; Annexure-4). LPU is a statuary University set up through Punjab Legislative and thus degrees are awarded by LPU stand registered. The students graduating from LPU are being admitted to institution of Higher education in all parts of the world” 9. The said certificate has not been taken into consideration by respondents No. 1 and 2. The entire exercise made by the respondents amounts to taking away the legitimate right of the petitioner. When the concerned University, i.e., the expert body has stated that qualification of B. Tech in Automobile Engg. is equivalent to the qualification of B. Tech. in Mechanical Engineering, and that is why the said certificate was accepted by the Public Service Commission, then how can it lie in the mouth of respondents No. 1 and 2 that it is not equivalent and petitioner was not eligible to participate in the selection process. - 5 – 10. is equivalent to the qualification of B. Tech. in Mechanical Engineering, and that is why the said certificate was accepted by the Public Service Commission, then how can it lie in the mouth of respondents No. 1 and 2 that it is not equivalent and petitioner was not eligible to participate in the selection process. - 5 – 10. The apex Court in Chandrakala Trivedi versus State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 129 , held that the word “equivalent” must be given a reasonable meaning. If a person is provisionally selected, it is not within the powers of the department to refuse appointment when he has been found suitable by the Commission and recommendation has been made for his appointment. It has been further held that a recommendee has legitimate expectation which cannot be taken away on flimsy grounds. It apt to reproduce paras 7 to 10 of the said judgment herein. “7. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has given a finding that the higher qualification is not the substitute for the qualification of Senior Secondary or Intermediate. In the instant case, we fail to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to the extent that it does not consider higher qualification as equivalent to the qualification of passing Senior Secondary examination even in respect of a candidate who was provisionally selected. 8. The word ‘equivalent’ must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression, ‘equivalent’ one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence. 9. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant should be considered reasonably and the provisional appointment which was given to her should not be cancelled. We order accordingly. However, we make it clear that we are passing this order taking in our view the special facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant should be considered reasonably and the provisional appointment which was given to her should not be cancelled. We order accordingly. However, we make it clear that we are passing this order taking in our view the special facts and circumstances of the case. - 6 – 10.We hope and expect that the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall make a suitable recommendation in the light of the observation in this judgment within four weeks from today and the State, which is also a party, will make an appointment accordingly within four weeks thereafter. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.” 11. The apex Court has also dealt with this issue in case titled Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others with Dr. Manjunath v. H.L. Ramesh and others reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5907. It is apt to reproduce paras 32, 33, 35 and 44 of the said judgment herein. “32. According to the experts of the Selection Board, both the appellants had requisite qualification and were eligible for appointment. If they were selected by the Commission and appointed by the Government, no fault can be found in the same. The High Court interfered and set aside the selections made by the experts committee. This Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court reminded the High Court that it would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts. The Court observed as under: “7. ....When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be... “ 33. In Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha & Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418 , the court observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians: “17. “ 33. In Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha & Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418 , the court observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians: “17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. ... ... ... “ 34……. …….. 35. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others (1990) 2 SCC 746 , the court relied on the judgment in University of Mysore ( AIR 1965 SC 491 ) and observed that in the matter of appointments in the academic field, the court generally does not interfere. The court further observed that the High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor had acted. 36 to 43. ….. …… 44. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others (2009) 11 SCC 726 , again the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.” 12. Applying the test, it is apparent that the respondents have deprived of the petitioner from his legitimate right. 13. It was brought to my notice during the course of hearing by the learned Advocate General that the post is still lying vacant against which the petitioner has been recommended. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission and pass appropriate orders, within four weeks from today. 15. The petition stands disposed of as indicated hereinabove, alongwith pending applications, if any.