Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 557 (UTT)

Naveen Singh Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-08-20

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following substantive reliefs: “(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned Disposal Order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition) passed by the Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar so far it pertains to the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is concerned for the post of Assistant Commissioner Sugar Cane and Assistant Director Agriculture and Soil Conservation Officer (Development Branch) and to grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the candidature of the petitioner as suitable and eligible for the post of Assistant Commissioner Sugar Cane and Assistant Director Agriculture and Soil Conservation Officer (Development Branch) advertised vide Advertisement dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition), on the basis of educational qualification possessed by the petitioner. (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the Degree of B. Tech. in Agriculture Engineering as an equivalent qualification for the purposes of being considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Commissioner Sugar Cane and Assistant Director Agriculture and Soil Conservation Officer (Development Branch) advertised vide Advertisement dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition).” 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his candidature for appointment to Group-B post of Assistant Director, Agriculture and Soil Conservation Officer (Development Branch), vide order dated 12.07.2024, passed by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner possesses Bachelor of Technology (Agricultural Engineering) qualification. He relies on notification dated 10.12.2021, whereby Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 were amended and Bachelor’s degree in Agricultural Engineering was recognised as one of the qualification needed for appointment to Agriculture, Group-B Service, including post of Assistant Director, Investment/ Engineering/ Agriculture Protection/ Monitoring/ Soil Testing etc. 4. Based on the said amendment, made vide notification dated 10.12.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since Bachelors degree in Agricultural Engineering is one of the qualification for appointment as Assistant Director, therefore, rejection of petitioner’s candidature by Public Service Commission is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. 4. Based on the said amendment, made vide notification dated 10.12.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since Bachelors degree in Agricultural Engineering is one of the qualification for appointment as Assistant Director, therefore, rejection of petitioner’s candidature by Public Service Commission is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission submitted that the relevant recruitment Rules were amended vide notification dated 10.12.2021; while, advertisement was issued by the Commission on 10.08.2021 as per the requisition sent by State Government. Thus, he submits that eligibility conditions, if altered after commencement of selection process, cannot be made applicable to ongoing selection, as rules of the game cannot be changed midway. 6. We find substance in the said submission. Even if Bachelors degree in Agricultural Engineering has been added as one of the qualification for appointment to the post in question after issuance of advertisement, then also petitioner cannot claim benefit of such changed qualification, and his eligibility has to be seen with reference to the Rules as were prevailing on the date of commencement of selection process. 7. As per the recruitment Rules in vogue at the time of advertisement, a candidate with Bachelors degree in Agriculture or possessing any qualification recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto, alone is eligible for appointment to the post in question. Thus, subsequent amendment in the Rules will not improve the case of petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement was not only entertained, but, he was permitted to participate in the preliminary examination and also in the main examination, thus, the Commission could not have declared him ineligible thereafter. Petitioner relies upon a letter issued by Indian Council for Agricultural Research in support of his contention that B.Sc. Agriculture and B. Tech., Agricultural Engineering, both are treated as Bachelors degree in Agriculture. 9. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are bereft of merit. It is common knowledge that large number of applications are received by Public Service Commission, in response to advertisement issued by it, and it is not practically possible to examine eligibility of all applicants at the time of issuing admit cards for participating in the preliminary examination. Eligibility of a candidate is scrutinised at the time of interview or thereafter at the time of appointment. Eligibility of a candidate is scrutinised at the time of interview or thereafter at the time of appointment. It is well settled that there cannot be estoppel against statute. The recruitment Rules are statutory in nature and any person, who is not qualified as per the recruitment Rules, cannot claim estoppel against the selecting body i.e. Public Service Commission by contending that after permitting him to appear in the selection process, his candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that his qualification is not as per the requirement of the Rules. Petitioner’s reliance on letter dated 18.08.2022 issued by ICAR is misplaced. There is nothing in that letter, which supports the contention raised by petitioner that B.Tech. Agricultural Engineering is treated as Bachelors degree in Engineering. 10. Learned State Counsel submits that B. Tech. Degree in Agricultural Engineering cannot be treated as equivalent to B.Sc. Agriculture qualification, as the curriculum of both qualifications, is entirely different. He submits that subjects which a student of B.Sc. Agriculture is required to study would not have been studied by petitioner, as the focus of B. Tech. Agricultural Engineering Course is on machines and tools used in agriculture; while, a student of B.Sc. Agriculture studies subjects like plant-physiology, parasitalogy, plant breeding etc. He relies upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642 , where Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “12. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” 11. Learned State Counsel also relies upon a Division Bench judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 122 of 2015, reported in 2015 SCC Online All 4403. Para Nos. 2, 3 & 7 of the said judgment are extracted below: “2. The appellants applied in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission3 for filling up posts in the Subordinate Agriculture Services, Grade-III through Technical Assistant Group - ‘C’ Examination-2013. Para Nos. 2, 3 & 7 of the said judgment are extracted below: “2. The appellants applied in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission3 for filling up posts in the Subordinate Agriculture Services, Grade-III through Technical Assistant Group - ‘C’ Examination-2013. The minimum educational qualification required in clause 11 of the notification were as follows: “11. Educational qualification: Till last date for submitting the applications the candidates must possess a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture from a recognized Institution or University.” 3. According to the appellants, they have passed the B.Tech. in Agricultural Engineering. The issue as to whether the B.Tech in Agricultural Engineering is equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture was considered by a Division Bench in its decision dated 1 February 2012 in Anand Kumar Rai (supra) along with Vijay Kumar Kamley (supra). The Division Bench, after noting the view of the Commission and considering the syllabus for the two degree courses held as follows: “8. Prima facie, without going into the details, we find that the syllabus for ‘Agriculture’ for which qualifications in the prescribed code is B.Sc. (Agriculture) in Item No. 1 is different than the Agricultural Engineering in Item No. 33. 9. The Courts do not possess the expertise to compare the equivalence of educational qualifications, to make comparisons for eligibility for the posts in the statutory rules. 10. In State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642 the Supreme Court held as under: “12. From the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” 7. We are unable to accept the submission. The ICAR has indicated in a broad sense the undergraduate degrees in Agriculture. Among them are also included degrees in Forestry, Home Science, Horticulture, Fisheries Science, Food Science, Veterinary Science and Dairy Technology. If the submission of the appellants were to be accepted, all those degrees also would have to be regarded as equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture. The ICAR has indicated in a broad sense the undergraduate degrees in Agriculture. Among them are also included degrees in Forestry, Home Science, Horticulture, Fisheries Science, Food Science, Veterinary Science and Dairy Technology. If the submission of the appellants were to be accepted, all those degrees also would have to be regarded as equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture. That apart, the view expressed by the Govind Ballabh Pant, University of Agriculture and Technology on 5 November 2014 is what it purports to be namely an opinion. A matter of equivalence cannot be concluded on the basis of such an opinion. The essential issue is whether the Commission, after evaluating the syllabus was justified in holding that the degree of B.Tech in Agricultural Engineering is not equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture. We see no reason to fault that decision, particularly having regard to the fact that the matter was already governed by the earlier judgment of the Division Bench rendered on 1 February 2012 as noted above.” 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.