Himanshu Baldevbhai Gohil vs Chief Human Resource Manager, O.N.G.C

N.V.Anjaria, J

Heard learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.Ajay Mehta for respondent No.1 â€" Oil & Natural Gas

Corporation and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for respondent No.2.

By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to direct the respondent No.1 - Oil &

Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) to consider the applications of the petitioners for recruitment to the post of Assistant Technician (Production).

2.1 The two petitioners have pleaded for consideration of their educational qualification of Diploma in Petrochemical Technology to be identical and

corresponding to the Diploma in Chemical Engineering.

Noticing the basic facts, pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2019 issued in the local newspaper by the respondent No.1 â€" ONGC for different posts

which included the post of Assistant Technician (Production Level II), the petitioners submitted their applications. The minimum essential qualification

needed for the post was inter alia three years Diploma in Chemical/Mechanical/Petroleum Engineering which was mentioned in the advertisement.

The petitioners claimed that they possessed the qualifications to be eligible.

3.1 The premise for seeking eligibility by the petitioners to the post was that they had the qualification of three years Diploma in Petrochemical

Technology and that the said qualification was equivalent to the qualification of Diploma in Chemical Engineering mentioned and required as per the

prescription. As the respondent did not consider the qualification held by the petitioners to be equivalent, the petitioners filed the present petition.

Learned advocate for the petitioners assailed the decision of respondent No.1 â€" ONGC in not treating the petitioners as eligible and not accepting

the equivalence of their qualification. It was submitted that the Education Department of the State Government issued Notification dated 21st June,

2013 in which the diploma course of Petrochemical Technology was treated as a course corresponding to Chemical Engineering. It was submitted that

ONG Cought to have therefore accepted the similarity of the course and ought to have treated the qualification of the petitioners of Diploma in

Petrochemical Technology to be equivalent to the Diploma in Chemical Engineering. It was further submitted that the course of Diploma in Chemical

Engineering from the Gujarat University whereas the Diploma in Petrochemical Technology was from Maharaja Sayajirao University, vadodara,

rendering the two similar course different only on the count that they were awarded by different Universities, however both of them were equivalent.

4.1 The petition was contested by respondent No.1 â€" ONGC by filing affidavit-in-reply in which it was asserted that petitioners did not possess the

qualification required for the post of Assistant Technician (Production) which was that the candidate must have a Diploma in Mechanical or Chemical

or Petroleum Engineering. It was highlighted from the advertisement that the diploma should be in required discipline and that no equivalence was

acceptable.

4.2 Learned advocate for the respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that similar plea of considering two years diploma course equivalent to

three years diploma course was considered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.5836 of 2015 and the contention was negatived. It was

submitted that respondent No.1 is a central public sector undertaking which has its own recruitment rules, which was required to be adhered to by it.

The plea for treating the diploma held by the petitioners to be equivalent with the requirement mentioned in the advertisement would nosedive once

condition No.17 in the advertisement under the head “Important note for the candidates†was seen. It specifically contemplated thus, “Diploma

should be in the prescribed discipline as mentioned in the essential qualification, (no equivalency will be acceptable)â€. The essential qualification in

respect of different posts advertised were mentioned in paragraph 1.2. Against the post of Assistant Technician (Production), the requirement

mentioned was three yeas Diploma in Mechanical/Chemical/ Petroleum Engineering.

5.1 Reading the essential qualification with prescription in condition No.17 mentioned above, it was clear that the equivalent qualification could not be

accepted by the employer. Therefore, having regard to the clear stipulation in the advertisement, the question of considering equivalence of any

qualification possessed by the candidate would not arise. It was within the domain of the employer to decide that it would accept only the qualification

with a particular kind and nomenclature and that equivalence to thereof would not be considered.

Even otherwise, it is a well settled proposition of law that the Court would not go into the question of equivalence of a degree or qualification. In

Basic Education Board, UP v. Upendra Rai [2008 (3) SCC 432], the facts inter alia were that the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) was earlier treated as

equivalent to Basic Teacher’s Certificate (B.T.C.) but later came to be derecognized. The case of the respondents was that they fulfilled the

requisite qualification by virtue of D.Ed. Certificate. They had challenged the derecognition of D.Ed. and wanted the said qualification to be treated as

equivalent to the Basic Teacher’s Certificate. Refusing to give any relief, the Supreme Court held that the decision not to regard the D.Ed.

Certificate as equivalent to B.T.C. Was a policy decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Court would not interfere in such decision. It was

laid down that grant or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision. Such decision stands under the sole discretion of the authority

concerned. The Court has nothing to do with such matters. It was further stated that issue of equivalence is decided by the experts and the court does

not have expertise in such kind of matters.

6.1 The principle was reiterated in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 60 ]wherein it was observed that the

equivalence is a technical and academic matter which cannot be implied or assumed. It was further observed that any decision of the academic body

or university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution duly published. If an authority or university did not wish to treat a

particular course, in that case, the correspondence course and distant education course, as being the same, it was a matter of policy wherein the

courts would not interfere. The policy relating to the aspect of equivalence was an academic matter, it was stated.

6.2 The submission that the State Government had treated the qualification held by the petitioners to be equivalent, does not carry the case of the

petitioners any further since it is for each body or university to fix the norms of eligibility and decide on the question of equivalence. In Rajendra

Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another [AIR 1986 SC 1448, ]the law on the question of equivalence was succinctly stated in the

following words,

“It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the

University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held

by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching

or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the court should not disturb the decision taken by the University.â€

(para 7)

6.3 In Shivangi Sanatkumar Pota v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.4698 of 2018 decided as per judgment dated 30th April, 2019,

the question was whether the Degree of M.A. (Sociology) possessed by the petitioner was equivalent to the requirement of Masters Degree in Social

Work or Labour Welfare prescribed for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Class-I. This Court considered the law on the question emanating

from different decisions of the Apex Court to observe and hold thus,

“6. The question of equivalence is to be addressed and is to be decided in respect of each post independently, as every post would have its own

nature of duties attached to it and would have carried the functional specialities. A particular qualification may be the good qualification for one post,

but it may not be so for another post. The question of equivalence is a customized question to be decided accordingly qua each case. Also that

because the Public Service Commission in one State treats the degree as equivalent, is also no ground to contend that the Service Commission in other

State should follow the same. It is ordinarily for each authority to decide the question whether a qualification or degree is to be applied as

equivalent.â€​

6.4 It was further observed and held in Shivangi Sanatkumar Pota (supra),

“6.1 The principles regarding determination of equivalent degree and noninterference in the decisions of such nature by the Courts, are true for the

field of education as well as in the arena of service laws. The determination of equivalent qualification either for educational admission or in respect of

service post is always an academic exercise to be undertaken by the experts in the field. It is a domain of the employer to decide whether a particular

degree is relevant to the post in question and whether a particular degree could be considered as equivalent to the requirement prescribed. Deciding

whether a degree or qualification could be a substitute for another degree as qualification, is not the function of the Court. Nor the Court has the

academic acumen in this realm. In treating a qualification or degree not equivalent to one prescribed, a host of factors become relevant. The academic

body or the expert employer, as the case may be, could be said to be the best judge.â€​

6.5 It is not for the court to consider and decide whether a particular degree or course or qualification is equivalent to the other. It is a matter of policy

in the realm of education, academic or service jurisprudence. A judicial restraint should be exercised by not interfering with such decisions.

For the foregoing reasons and discussion, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. Petition is meritless and stands dismissed. Notice is

discharged.