Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 499 (GUJ)

Shivangi Sanatkumar Pota v. State of Gujarat

2019-04-30

N.V.ANJARIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned advocate Mr.Kriten Tiwari for learned advocate Mr.Tulshi R. Savani for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for respondent No.1-State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr.Shivang Shukla for respondent No.2-Gujarat Public Service Commission. 2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of the respondents whereby the petitioner is treated to be not eligible for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner Class-I. The petitioner prays for a further direction to call her for interview for the post. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved since he was not treated eligible and was not called for interview for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner Class-I. For the recruitment to the post, the advertisement dated 15.06.2016 was published by respondent No.2 Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC). The petitioner applied and participated in the process up to clearing of the preliminary examination held on 21.05.2017. However, at the stage of scrutiny of application, the petitioner was declined to be called for interview on the ground that she possessed the degree of M.A. (Sociology) which was not the requisite educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner made a representation before the respondent and thereafter filed the present petition. 3.1 The educational qualifications leading to eligibility for appointment to the post, mentioned in the advertisement, were derived from the statutory rules framed by the Government of Gujarat called Assistant Commissioner of Labour Service Class-I, notified under Notification dated 15.11.2011 by the Labour and Employment Department. Rule 2 is about promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency amongst the eligibility mentioned in that Rule. The ratio of direct selection and promotion is as mentioned in Rule 3. Rule 4 which deals with the eligibility for appointment by direct selection, is relevant in the present controversy. 3.2 Rule 4 of the aforementioned Rules reads as under, “4. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall – (a) Not be more than 35 years of age: Provided that .... .... 3.2 Rule 4 of the aforementioned Rules reads as under, “4. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall – (a) Not be more than 35 years of age: Provided that .... .... (b) possess (i) at least a second class degree obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or any other educational institution recognized as such by the Government or declared as deemed to be a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; or possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government; and, (ii) a Master degree in Social Work or Labour Welfare obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or any other educational institution recognized as such by the Government or declared as deemed to be University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; or possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government; (c) ... (d) ... (e) ... 3.3 As against the above qualifications of Master's degree in Social Work or Labour Welfare prescribed in the above statutory Rules, looking at the certificates produced and the details mentioned in the application form by the petitioner, the petitioner possessed the degree of M.A. (Sociology). The petitioner has further obtained post graduate diploma in Human Resource Management. The petitioner wants the degree held by her to be treated as equivalent to one required under the Rules and wants to be considered eligible for the post. 4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that by not considering the qualification held by the petitioner to be equivalent and resultantly not accepting the candidature of the petitioner for the post, the respondents acted in error. It was sought to be asserted that Master’s Degree in Sociology was required to be treated as same as Master's degree in Social Work or Labour Welfare for the purpose of eligibility prescribed in Rule 4(b)(ii) of the Rules. It was submitted in furtherance that the very degree held by the petitioner was recognized as equivalent by the respondents in the other advertisements issued by GPSC for other post. It was submitted in furtherance that the very degree held by the petitioner was recognized as equivalent by the respondents in the other advertisements issued by GPSC for other post. By annexing copy of advertisement published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour/Labour Officer, it was contended that in that recruitment process also, the degree possessed by the petitioner was treated as an acceptable qualification. 4.1 The petition was contested and the prayer was opposed by respondent No.2 Gujarat Public Service Commission by filing affidavit-in-reply. It was stated by pursuant to recruitment process initiated as per the advertisement, 131 applications were received; after preliminary examination, the process of verification of document was conducted and upon such verification, the list of eligible candidates was published on 09.08.2017 and 09.11.2017. It was stated that the petitioner was required to possess the Master’s Degree in Social Work or Labour Welfare from any university, but the degree of petitioner was of M.A. (Sociology) and she had also passed the Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resource Management. It was contended that neither of these qualifications are declared by the State Government as equivalent to the required qualification. 5. In Basic Education Board, UP vs. Upendra Rai and others, [ 2008 (3) SCC 432 ], the facts inter alia were that the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) was earlier treated as equivalent to Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.) but later came to be derecognized. The case of the respondents was that they fulfilled the requisite qualification by virtue of D.Ed. Certificate. They had challenged the derecognition of D.Ed. and wanted the said qualification to be treated as equivalent to the Basic Teacher's Certificate. Refusing to give any relief, the Supreme Court held that the decision not to regard the D.Ed. Certificate as equivalent to B.T.C. was a policy decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Court would not interfere in such decision. The Court observed further, “Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. The Court observed further, “Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it.” (para 15) 5.1 In Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another [2009 (1) SCC 60], the Supreme Court reiterated the principle observing, “Equivalence is a techinical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. It was further observed that what was more imporatant was that the appellant university in that case did not wish to treat the correspondence course and distance education course as being the same. It was observed that, that was the matter of policy and the Courts will not interfere with the said policy relating to the aspect of equivalence which was an academic matter. The respondent was held to be not fulfilling the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for admission to three year law course.” 5.2 In Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another [ AIR 1986 SC 1448 ], the law on the question of equivalence was succinctly stated in the following words, “It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the court should not disturb the decision taken by the University.” (para 7) 6. The submission that in another advertisements by the GPSC, the degree of M.A. in Sociology was recognized as equivalent, is not liable to be countenanced. The advertisement produced to raise this submission was in respect of a different post. It is an academic question in which the court should not disturb the decision taken by the University.” (para 7) 6. The submission that in another advertisements by the GPSC, the degree of M.A. in Sociology was recognized as equivalent, is not liable to be countenanced. The advertisement produced to raise this submission was in respect of a different post. A particular qualification may have been treated as equivalent in respect of one post, for that very reason it cannot be treated as equivalent for another post. The question of equivalence is to be addressed and is to be decided in respect of each post independently, as every post would have its own nature of duties attached to it and would have carried the functional specialities. A particular qualification may be the good qualification for one post, but it may not be so for another post. The question of equivalence is a customized question to be decided accordingly qua each case. Also that because the Public Service Commission in one State treats the degree as equivalent, is also no ground to contend that the Service Commission in other State should follow the same. It is ordinarily for each authority to decide the question whether a qualification or degree is to be applied as equivalent. 6.1 The principles regarding determination of equivalent degree and non-interference in the decisions of such nature by the Courts, are true for the field of education as well as in the arena of service laws. The determination of equivalent qualification either for educational admission or in respect of service post is always an academic exercise to be undertaken by the experts in the field. It is a domain of the employer to decide whether a particular degree is relevant to the post in question and whether a particular degree could be considered as equivalent to the requirement prescribed. Deciding whether a degree or qualification could be a substitute for another degree as qualification, is not the function of the Court. Nor the Court has the academic acumen in this realm. In treating a qualification or degree not equivalent to one prescribed, a host of factors become relevant. The academic body or the expert employer, as the case may be, could be said to be the best judge. 7. Nor the Court has the academic acumen in this realm. In treating a qualification or degree not equivalent to one prescribed, a host of factors become relevant. The academic body or the expert employer, as the case may be, could be said to be the best judge. 7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion and in view of the position of law discussed, no relief could be booked for the petitioner. The petition stands meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. No cost.