Kumari Ruby Choudhary @ Ruby Dutta, Wife of Kedar Nath Dutt v. State of Jharkhand
2016-10-26
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : Aggrieved of her exclusion from selection on the post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, submits that on a specific query of the Commission, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) vide its letter dated 12.11.2014 has clarified that the applicants who pursued the course in Organizing Child Care Services (ACC1) can be considered for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor. The learned counsel contends that the course, that is, (ACC1), when seen in the context of the brochure and the marks obtained by her, makes the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor. 4. Per contra, Mr. M. Sohail Anwar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission submits that the degree awarded by IGNOU to the petitioner discloses that her major subject was History and Organizing Child Care Services was only a subsidiary subject whereas, Advertisement No. 03(pa)/2013 makes it mandatory for a candidate to possess a degree in Sociology or Psychology or Home Science or Child Development. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner pursued course of Bachelor of Arts and she has been awarded a degree of Bachelor of Arts-Major in History vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 6. Advertisement No. 03(pa)/2013 issued for appointment of Lady Supervisor in the PBII, Pay Band Rs.9300-34800, Grade Pay Rs. 4200 requires that a candidate applying for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor must possess a degree as mentioned in Column 4 of the said advertisement. The degree obtained by the petitioner, as noticed above, is not of any one of the subjects mentioned therein. The petitioner, who has cleared the paper in Organizing Child Care Services (ACC1) which is a subsidiary subject, cannot claim equivalence to a Bachelor's degree in Social Science/Psychology/Home Science/Child Development. 7. The contention that the qualification mentioned in Column 4 of the advertisement for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor would include any Bachelor's degree with subject such as, Organizing Child Care Services (ACC1) which comes under Child Development and thus, the petitioner is also entitled for consideration for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor, is misconceived.
7. The contention that the qualification mentioned in Column 4 of the advertisement for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor would include any Bachelor's degree with subject such as, Organizing Child Care Services (ACC1) which comes under Child Development and thus, the petitioner is also entitled for consideration for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor, is misconceived. The handbook and brochure of IGNOU brought on record by the petitioner would also disclose that Organizing Child Care Services is only a subsidiary subject whereas, the essential educational qualification for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor is a Bachelor's degree in the subjects specified, that is, Social Science, Psychology, Home Science and Child Development. Declaring equivalence of 2 degrees/courses is purely an administrative exercise and generally courts would not venture to undertake such an exercise. In the writ petition, however, there is not even a prayer for declaring the degree obtained by the petitioner equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in the above subjects. Letter dated 12.11.2014 also does not indicate that IGNOU has declared the degree of Bachelor of Arts Major in History, equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in the subjects under Column 4 of the advertisement. The fact that the petitioner was initially shortlisted for counselling is neither here nor there. In view of lack of basic qualification for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner cannot seek a direction upon the respondents to consider her claim for appointment. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.