AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Supehia, J
The present Appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 28.06.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.16604 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking following prayers :-
“(A) Quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16604 of 2010, Annexure-A to this appeal and further be pleased to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the said petition, and
(B) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances.”
The appellant had sought directions for quashing and setting aside the decision dated 16.09.2010, whereby his candidature for the position of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, has been rejected by holding that the appellant’s Post Diploma course cannot be said to be equivalent to the Graduation degree. The facts narrated by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute. The appellant applied to the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.02.2009 who is possessing a Post Diploma in Fine Arts (in Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts).
After the appellant had undergone the recruitment process, such as written examination, he was issued the call letter for verification of the application form. Upon verification, it was found that his Diploma is not equivalent to Graduation degree and his candidature was rejected.
Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the writ petition since the Diploma, which is possessed by the appellant, can be said to be equivalent to a Degree. He has referred to the clauses of the advertisement as well as the Rules of recruitment being old Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed) Rules, 2008 more particularly, Rule 4, which mentions that a candidate must possess a Degree obtained from any University or from an Institution or an equivalent qualification recognized as such by the Government. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on one of such documents, which has been issued on 16.09.1983 in the name of Amrutbhai Patel by the Education Department holding that the Diploma in Fine Arts can be said to be equivalent to a Degree for the purpose of employment / appointment of such services in the State Government. It is also submitted that in fact, an error has been committed by the authorities in referring to the Post Diploma Course for the purpose of seeking equivalence instead of Diploma Course, which the appellant has undergone.
Learned Advocate Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas has also referred to the Certificate issued by the Directorate of Arts, State of Maharashtra on 19.10.2004. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Single has failed to appreciate the documents on record and has erred in rejecting the Writ Petition.
We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity or illegality passed in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is seeking equivalence of his Diploma with Degree. The learned Single Judge in this regard has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 and Indresh Kumar Mishra and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 42 and has held thus :-
“10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the said decision read thus:
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK 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 pre-supposes 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 KK 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 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.
While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.”
It is also apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indresh Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 42. Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the said decision read thus :
“20. As per the settled proposition of law, in the field of education, the Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate is possessing the requisite qualification should better be left to the educational institutions, more particularly, when the Expert Committee considers the matter.
In the present case, the educational qualifications required has been specifically mentioned in the advertisement. There is no ambiguity and/or confusion in the advertisement providing educational qualification and the post for which the applications were invited (History/Civics). There cannot be any deviation from the educational qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. Once having found that the respective writ petitioners – appellants herein were not having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, namely, the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement as per the advertisement and thereafter their candidature was canceled, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have rightly refused to interfere with the same. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.
As observed hereinabove in the online applications, it was stated by the respective petitioners that they are having the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and only at the time of verification of the documents, when the respective certificates were produced, at that time only, the authorities came to know that the respective writ petitioners have the degrees in one branch of History and not in History as a whole and therefore the show-cause notices were issued so that the respective petitioners can clarify and satisfy that they are having the requisite qualification of Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and after giving them the opportunity, the decision has been taken and that too after obtaining the Expert Committee’s opinion.”
In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred above, and in the facts of the present case, the petitioner has placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Dean Faculty of Fine Arts, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, certifying that “the Master of Fine Arts and Post Diploma in Fine Arts (in Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) offered by the Faculty of Fine Arts is a two year professional course and the practical courses offered to degree and diploma courses are common hence, both this courses are considered equivalent to each other.”
12.1 The aforesaid certificate certifies equivalence between Master of Fine Arts and Post Diploma in Fine Arts. The said certificate further provides that both are practical courses that are offered to Degree and Diploma and that, the same are equivalent to each other.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has produced on record at page 13 and 14 the Diploma Certificate and Post Diploma certificate dated April, 2000 and 17.01.2004 respectively. Undisputedly, the petitioner does not possess a degree.
The aforesaid certificate does not create any right in favour of the petitioner, to be considered for appointment to the advertised post. The Rules stipulate that the petitioner was required to possess a degree or an equivalent qualification recognized as such by the State Government. The Commissioner, Higher Education, as referred above, has opined that the said course Post Diploma in Fine Arts, is not equivalent to a degree and the candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected. The other qualifications of the petitioner which are produced on record by way of rejoinder, admittedly are subsequent to the impugned order/communication dated 16.09.2010 declining to include the name of the petitioner in the list of candidates; who are selected for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III.
Undisputedly, the petitioner is conferred with a degree in Bachelor of Arts in the year 2017. Reliance placed by the petitioner on a certificate/communication dated 16.09.1983 duly produced at Annexure – R12, page 92, is with respect to third person wherein, the Education Department, State of Gujarat, considered Diploma in Final Examination of Drawings and Paintings. On perusal of said certificate/communication, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner cannot equate himself with the case of third party; which is with respect to a different subject, post and rules governing the subject.”
We do not find any infirmity in the said observations as it would be in the discretion of the respondent authorities to examine the equivalence of the Diploma with the Degree and the same does not fall within the domain of the High Court. The recruitment rules, indubitably refer to Degree or equivalent qualification. The competent authority upon verification of the Diploma in Fine Arts has held that the same cannot be said to be equivalent to the Bachelors Degree. The documents, on which reliance has been placed, has been precisely dealt with by the learned Single Judge. We do not find that such documents will come to the rescue of the appellant.
Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same is rejected. As a sequel, the Civil Application stands disposed of.