Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1291 (RAJ)

Arvind Kumar Baswal v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-08-03

INDERJEET SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the facts stated herein above and after perusal there of the same: (i) The impugned order dated 26.7.2019 (Annex-7) and impugned letter dated 16.09.2019 (Annex-10) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) Further the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for giving appointment to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer considering his qualification equivalent to B.SC (Horticulture Hons.) with all consequential benefits thereto. (iii) Any other order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the fats and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.10.2015, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer and after being successful in the written examination, the petitioner was called for interview. At a later stage the petitioner was informed by the RPSC vide letter dated 26.07.2019 that his candidature has been rejected on the ground of his not holding the educational qualification as required for the post in question on the date of filing of application form. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the RPSC on 26.07.2019, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The educational qualification which is required for the post in question as mentioned in the advertisement reads as under:- "(i) B.Sc. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. (Horticulture) Honours of a University established by Law in India. (ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the application form for the post in question, the petitioner was having the required degree of B.Sc (Horticulture) issued by Tamil Nadu University, Coimbatore. (ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the application form for the post in question, the petitioner was having the required degree of B.Sc (Horticulture) issued by Tamil Nadu University, Coimbatore. Counsel further submits that when candidature of the petitioner was rejected, he approached the Tamil Nadu University, Coimbatore and the said university has issued a certificate clarifying that B.Sc (Horticulture) is a 4 years degree programme which is offered by the University and it is the degree in Horticulture Science and the petitioner has completed his course from Tamil Nadu Agriculture University during the session 2008-2012 and further clarified that from the academic year 2017-18, the same degree is issued as in the nomenclature of B.Sc (Horticulture)(Hons.). Counsel further submitted that in view of the clarification issued by the University, the petitioner is having the requisite qualification as mentioned in the advertisement and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the subject post. Counsel further submits that B.Sc (Horticulture)(Hons.) was not in existence when the petitioner acquired the degree. 5. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the educational qualification being possessed by a candidate is to be seen on the date of filing of application form. Counsel further submits that the degree issued by the said University to the petitioner is of B.Sc. Horticulture and not of B.Sc (Horticulture)(Hon.) which is required for the said post, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on the subject post. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar Mishra, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 521 in Para 6 has held as under:- "The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut off date, if any, described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Therefore, the so- called confession made by the officer in the Court that persons haying lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside." 8. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner was not having the educational qualification as mentioned in the advertisement dated 16.10.2015; secondly, the Tamil Nadu University has issued clarification wherein it is specifically stated that as per ICAR, they started the course of B.Sc (Horticulture)(Hons.) from the year 2017 and the petitioner has acquired the degree of B.Sc (Horticulture) in 2012 and lastly, I am not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 9. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.