Gowher Ayoob Guna and Another vs State and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Petitioners have questioned the notification issued by official respondents in the year 2005-06 relating to post of

Lecturer in the discipline of Botany on the ground that private respondents were not having the requisite qualification of M.Sc. Botany but were

having qualification of M. Sc. (Environmental Botany). It is also averred that father of respondent No. 23 is the friend of respondent No. 5.

Respondents have denied the said facts. It is averred by the respondents that equivalence is to be granted by the Expert Academic Bodies-

university concerned. The courts or any other authority has no competence and jurisdiction to deal with the matter of equivalence. Further, it is

stated that provisional equivalence was granted by the University and accordingly the private respondents came to be allowed to participate in the

selection process. It is apt to reproduce para-9 of the reply herein:

In reply to para-11, it is submitted that the qualification of respondents 14, 16 and 24 has been provisionally declared equivalent to the required

qualification. It is on the basis of equivalence granted by the University of Kashmir, that the candidature of these selectees has been considered by

the answeririg respondents. Be that as it may, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that it is safe and wise to leave the subjects like equivalence of

degrees to the Expert Academic Bodies. It is also well settled that in the field of education, a court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally,

therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite qualification should better be left to the Educational Institutions. The expert body

i.e. Equivalence Committee of the University of Kashmir having declared M.Sc. in Environmental Body to that of M.Sc. Botany, the answering

respondents had no option, but to accept their candidature in the said process of selection. As already stated hereinabove, it is safe and wise to

leave it to the decision of such expert body. It, therefore, requires no indulgence by this Hon'ble Court.

After granting provisional equivalence, the respondents accepted the forms of private respondents, they competed in the selection process and

came to be selected and appointed. It appears that in the meantime, University has granted final equivalence in their favour vide notification No.

F(EC-RD)Acad/KU/08 dated July 19, 2008, Photostat copy of which came to be produced during the course of arguments. It is apt to

reproduce the said notification herein:

It is notified for the information of all concerned that the Equivalence Committee at its meeting held on 04-06-2008 recognized M.Sc.

Environmental Botany degree awarded by Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, as equivalent to M.Sc Botany degree of this University.

Keeping in view the notification (supra), the provisional equivalence merged into said notification (supra) and the M.Sc. Environmental Botany

degree awarded by Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, came to be treated as equivalent to M. Sc Botany degree. Thus the private respondents were

eligible at the relevant point of time.

It is beaten law of the land that it is for the academic/expert authority to consider the issue of equivalence and grant or revoke it. Apex court has

laid down the same principle in case titled Basic Education Board U.P. v. Upendra Rai and Ors. reported as 2008 AIR SCW 1560. It is apt to

reproduce para-15 of the said judgment herein:

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.

Same principle is again laid down in case titled Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman U.P.S.C and Ors. reported as 2006 AIR SCW 6023. It is

apt to reproduce para-33 of the said judgment herein:

The said decision does not help the case of the Fourth Respondent. The situation therein was entirely different. Opinions of the experts were

duly considered in arriving at the decision.

It is beaten law of the land that relevant date for judging the academic qualification is the date of issuance of notification. As per the provisional

equivalence, private respondents were having the qualification. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said that private respondents were not

having academic qualification which was required for competing in the examination. It is worthwhile to mention that Learned Counsel for the

petitioners argued that Kashmir University had made a statement in para-4 of the reply filed in SWP No. 607/2007 titled Rifat John v. University

of Kashmir and Anr. that the expert committee-Equivalence Committee had met on 5th of April, 2007 and were of the opinion that degree in

M.Sc. Environmental Botany could not be treated as equivalent degree for the post of Lecturer in Botany. The said statement is of no value in view

of the provisional equivalence and the equivalence granted vide notification (supra).

I have also gone through the writ petition, nothing is coming from the file that official respondents or experts have mis-used their official position

and have tried to favour private respondents. The writ petitioners have participated in the selection process, how can they challenge the process of

selection on flimsy grounds.

In view of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are dismissed along with all connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand

vacated.