Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 625 (ALL)

Anjaneya Sharma v. UP Public Service Commission

2024-02-28

PRAKASH PADIA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. The amendment application dated 27.02.2024 has been filed with the prayer to add paragraph 22-a to 22-l in the present case, annexed as annexure no.9 and 1-A. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. 3. Amendment application is allowed. 4. Shr Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary amendments during the course of the day. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent-U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj. 2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :- "1- Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent to produce the records pertaining to the short listing of the candidates called for the interview for the post of Assistant Architect Planner (Advertisement No.3 of 2019-20) published on the website of the commission on 17.02.2024 and to quash the same to the extent it does not includes the name of the petitioner in the same. (Annexed as Annexure No.7 to this writ petition) 1-A. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction quashing the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by the Incharge Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj. (Annexed as Annexure No.I-A to this writ petition)." 3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition is that petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Architect Planner, in pursuance of advertisement no.3 dated 19.11.2019 published by the respondent. The application was made on 16.12.2019. As per the advertisement (page 33) the last date for submission of online applications was 19.12.2019. A corrigendum was issued on 13.12.2023, in pursuance of which the petitioner resubmitted his form online on 16.12.2023, and hardcopy on 1.1.2024. The last date for re-submission was 02.01.2024. On 17.02.2024 a notification was published by the respondent fixing dates for interview on 27.2.24 and 28.2.24, for 30 candidates who had qualified for the interview. 4. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is fully qualified for the post and his name has wrongly been excluded from the list of candidates eligible for interview. 5. The writ petition was heard on 23.02.2024 and petitioner was permitted to give a representation to the respondent, which was to be decided by 25.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 was the next date fixed in the matter. 5. The writ petition was heard on 23.02.2024 and petitioner was permitted to give a representation to the respondent, which was to be decided by 25.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 was the next date fixed in the matter. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj, which was rejected by the respondent on 24.02.2024 taking the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria no.2 as mentioned in the advertisement, i.e., he does not possess a degree or postgraduate diploma in Town and Country/ Regional Planning. 6. By means of an amendment application dated 26.02.2024, certain grounds and prayer were sought to be added in the writ petition. The said amendment application was allowed on 26.02.2024. Again, an amendment application was moved on 28.02.2024, adding certain averments to the writ petition. The said second amendment application was also allowed today. 7. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is fully qualified and has the requisite post graduate diploma, but has been wrongly non-suited by the respondent-Commission. It is further argued that in the State of U.P., there is a single department covering urban planning development, and town and country planning/regional planning, which is the Housing and Urban Planning Department. Reliance was placed in the amended writ petition on the official website of the Housing and Urban Planning Department to show the organisational structure, by means of which it was sought to be proved that town and country planning is included in the Department of housing and urban planning. Hence once the department is the same, the petitioner would be deemed to have due qualification of post graduate diploma of town and country/regional planning. On the basis of the above, the petitioner prayed for being provisionally allowed to appear in the interviews, subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 8. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon following two judgements :- (i) Neha Kothari & another Vs. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur & others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).52322/2023 decided on 15.12.2023. (ii) Writ A No.266 of 2021 (Amita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 11.01.2021. 9. 8. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon following two judgements :- (i) Neha Kothari & another Vs. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur & others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).52322/2023 decided on 15.12.2023. (ii) Writ A No.266 of 2021 (Amita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 11.01.2021. 9. It is argued by Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent that the posts advertised belong to the State Government, more specifically to the Town and Country Planning Department, which has not been impleaded in the present petition. It is further argued that respondent-Commission works entirely on the requisition given by the State Government, and the selection is to be made strictly in accordance with the qualification specified by the Government. There is no scope for the Commission to read more than what is written in the qualifications. Further, it was contended that under Article 226 the scope is limited, and equivalence of degrees/diplomas cannot be seen. He also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 and Unnikrishnan CV and others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in AIR 2023 SC 1943 . He placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015 (6) ADJ 411 (DB). On the basis of aforesaid it is argued by him that since the petitioner does not fulfil the essential qualifications as advertised in the advertisement, the issue of equivalance cannot be looked into by this Court specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 12. In the advertisement issued by the respondent-commission dated 19.11.2019 by which the online application forms were invited for appointment on various posts including six post of Assistant Architect Planner (General Recruitment) out of which five posts were reserved for general class category candidates and one post was reserved for other backward class. The essential qualification for the aforesaid post reads as follows:- "1. Degree in Architecture or Civil Engineering from a recognized institution. 2. The essential qualification for the aforesaid post reads as follows:- "1. Degree in Architecture or Civil Engineering from a recognized institution. 2. Degree or post graduate diploma in town and country / regional planning or associate membership from any one of the followings:- a. Institute of Town Planner (India) b. American Institute of Town Planners c. Institute of Town Planner (London) or qualification equivalent for the membership of institute of Town Planners India or London or America." 13. Educational qualification of the petitioner is:- 1. Bachelor of Architecture – 2013 2. P.G. Diploma in Urban Planning and Development – 2016 3. Master of Planning (Urban and Regional Planning) – 2020 14. Clause 19 of the advertisement states that "Candidates are required to complete essential qualification till the last date of receipt of online application. 15. From perusal of the record, it is clear that petitioner does not fulfilled the essential qualification no.2 as required pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. 16. In this view of the matter, list of candidates were published, the petitioner was not called for interview. 17. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 18. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court as stated above, a representation was submitted by the petitioner which was rejected on 24.02.2024. While rejecting the representation of the petitioner, it is mentioned that since the petitioner does not fulfilled the essential qualification no.2, he does not call for interview. 19. Now the question arises before this Court that whether the degree obtained by the petitioner is equivalent to the degree required by the respondents-commission or not. It has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (Supra) that prescription of qualification for post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as a employer is entitled to prescribed qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Paragraph-26 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- "26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. in the subsequent decision in Anita. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Paragraph-26 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- "26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. in the subsequent decision in Anita. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualification. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench." 20. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV (Supra). In paragraph-7 of the aforesaid judgment relying upon the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (Supra) it was held that the judicial review can neither expand upon ambit of the prescribed qualification nor decide equivalence of the prescribed qualification with any other qualification. Paragraph-7 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows:- "7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors. Paragraph-7 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows:- "7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors. MANU/SC/1422/2018 (2019) 2 SCC 404 , it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. (Emphasis supplied)" 21. In the case of Randhir Singh (Supra) it has already been held by the Division Bench of this Court that prescribing the qualification for the post is the function of the appointing authority. Ordinarily, the Court cannot determine the issue of equivalence. Paragraph-2 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- "2. Prescribing the qualifications for a post is the function of the appointing authority. Ordinarily, the Court cannot determine the issue of equivalence or stipulate that qualifications for the effective discharge of duties of a post can be equally met by another suitable qualification. The State which fills up a post is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as it considers necessary and proper for the proper discharge of the duties attached to the post. These are not matters on which judicial review can be exercised. The Court may interfere only in those cases where the qualifications prescribed are ultra vires a legislative enactment or where it is demonstrated that the prescribed qualifications are extraneous to the duties and functions attached to the post. Such is not the case here. " 22. Insofar as the judgment cited by Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is concerned in the case of Neha Kothari (Supra), the permission was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the petitioner to apply and appear in the recruitment test on the ground that fresh eligibility criteria has been issued by making an amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules. Since the present case there is no dispute regarding fresh eligibility criteria, the aforesaid order will not help the petitioner. 23. Since the present case there is no dispute regarding fresh eligibility criteria, the aforesaid order will not help the petitioner. 23. Insofar as the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amita Singh (Supra) is concerned, in the said case though the petitioner was qualified and having the certificate of her NET Examination but by way of mistake the same could not be submitted along-with her online application form. 24. In this view of the matter and by way of interim major, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Prayagraj was directed to allow the petitioner to provisionally appear before the concerned interview Board. 25. Facts of the present case are entirely different as in the case of Neha Kothari (Supra) and Amita Singh (Supra), the petitioner will not get any benefit of the judgments cited by him. 26. In this view of the matter and specially in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neha Kothari (Supra) and Amita Singh (Supra), the Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner does not fulfilled the essential qualification no.2 as per the advertisement issued by the respondent-commission, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. 27. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 28. No order as to costs. 29. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the copy of this order to the counsel for the parties today itself.