Karnataka Public Service Commission vs Veena M. and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—Though these petitions are listed for orders, at the request of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, they are taken up for final disposal.

The case made-out by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, namely the applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is that, they had applied for the post of Probation Officer Grade-I called for by the KPSC vide Notification No. R(2)907/2011-12/PSC dated 18.01.2012 for direct recruitment in the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Karnataka. The qualification prescribed for the said post was a Master''s Degree in Social Work or Home Science with specialization in Child Development or Nutrition. Since the applicants were not the holders of the Master''s Decree in Social Work or Home Science with Specialization in Child Development or Nutrition and they were holders of Master''s Degree in Home Science with Specialization in Human Development from the University of Agriculture of Sciences, Dharwad, their applications were not considered and consequently were rejected by the KPSC as not eligible for the interview. In view of their exclusion from the interview and selection criteria, they approached the Tribunal by filing application Nos. 6897-6902/2012 by contending that the nomenclature ''Child Development'' has been changed to ''Human Development'', as such, both are one and the same.

The Tribunal was of the view that the Master of Home Science (Human Development) is equivalent to Master of Home Science (Child Development) and there is only a change of nomenclature. The Tribunal further held that the KPSC and the Government were aware that it was only a change of nomenclature and in fact the Commissioner for Women and Child Development, Bangalore, had written to the Registrar of different Universities on 17.12.2012 referring to the letter of the Registrar of Agricultural University, Dharwad, on 18.12.1991 seeking information from those Universities. Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicants possess the required qualification for the said post and consequently, it allowed the applications by quashing the list containing the names of the candidates whose applications were rejected and directed the KPSC to consider their claim for selection and decide about their selection in accordance with law within two months from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, these petitions by the KPSC.

The contention of the KPSC is that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the Master''s Decree in Home Science (Human Development) is equivalent to Master''s Degree in Home Science (Child Development).

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents justifies the impugned order. They contend that the equivalence of the decree/qualification is not an issue for consideration. The said issue had arisen for consideration as far back as in the year 1999 itself; that the State Government having communicated to the KPSC that the decree of M.Sc. and Human Development are to be considered as equivalent qualification, the KPSC cannot now contend to the contrary.

On the other hand, the State Government have filed their objections supporting the case of the KPSC and pleaded for dismissal of the writ petitions.

On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the required qualification of Master''s Degree in Human Science (Child Development) is equivalent to the Master''s Decree in Human Science (Human Development) as possessed by the applicants before the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted various arguments in support of his stand that the Degree in Human Science (Human Development) is not the qualification prescribed under the C & R Rules; that when the Government themselves have supported the action of the KPSC, there is no scope for interference by the Tribunal; that the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the said Rules.

The contentions of the petitioner with regard to the equivalence of the degree need not be gone into for the following reasons. During the hearing of these petitions, the KPSC were asked to clarify as to whether the Government has taken a stand with regard to the equivalence of Degrees. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed an affidavit of the Secretary, KPSC, wherein it is stated at Para-3(a) as follows:--

"xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

I state that I have secured and examined the records presently available with the Commission in respect of the previous recruitments as per the notifications referred to above and it is found that:

3(a) In the final select list published by way of Notification Dated 27.01.1999 which notification was issued on completion of the recruitment process vide Notification dated 11.03.1999, the Commission has considered the candidature of candidates who possessed M.H. Sc. (Human Development) degree for the said recruitment. This course of action was adopted on the basis of a Government letter dated 12.08.1998 sent to the Commission stating that in respect of the recruitment to the post of Probation Officer Grade-I in the Department of Woman and Child Welfare, M.H. Sc. (Human Development) Degree issued by U.A.S., Dharwad, can be considered as equivalent qualification. In view of the said letter, the candidates possessing qualification of M.H. Sc. (Human Development) were also considered in the recruitment as per Notification dated 11.03.1997. In fact, the said Government letter dated 12.08.1998 is referred to at Reference No. 1 in the notification dated 17.01.1998 (final Select List) vide Annexure-R23."

b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"

It is therefore apparent that the equivalence of degree is an issue that has been settled by intervention by the State Government as far back in 1998 itself. That subsequently, appointments have been made on the said basis. Having made the appointments all these years, the KPSC cannot now re-agitate the same issue. The Government having taken a decision and having communicated to the Commission and the Commission having accepted it, cannot now take a reversal. At this stage, however, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the KPSC is an independent body and not bound by the directions of the State Government. The question whether the KPSC is bound by the Government''s decision is not necessary to be gone into in this case, since the issue of equivalence has been accepted by the KPSC as far back as in the year 1998. Subsequent selections are made on that basis. Therefore, the KPSC is estopped from contending to the contrary. It is needless to state that there should be consistency in the manner in which the KPSC conducts itself. Having considered the appointments all these years as equivalent, the KPSC cannot re-agitate the same issue once again.

The State Government having filed their statement of objections are supporting the case of the KPSC. Their contention is that, there is no equivalence and hence it ought to be rejected. We are unable to accept the stand of the Government. The State cannot be expected to change its stand as and when it desires. In the year 1998, the State Government having held equivalence of degrees/qualification, cannot now turn around and say that there is no equivalence, especially when the posts have been filled-up all these years on the basis of treating the degree as equivalent. Therefore, the affidavit of the State supporting the stand of the KPSC has no significance.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no error in the impugned order. Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed.