Kulvindra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

In pursuance of our order of 29th July, 2022, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has reported instructions as follows :-

Point No.

Point

Respondent’s Reply (UKPSC)

6(1)

Whether the post of Horticulture Development Officer, for which the advertisement is issued, is the same as District Horticulture Officer mentioned in Appendix A(2), Section B(2) of the “U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993”?

The post of Horticulture Development Officer, for which the advertisement is issued, is the same as District Horticulture Officer mentioned in Appendix A(2), Section B(2) of the “U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993”

6(2)

Whether the service rules governing the post of Horticulture Development Officer are “U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993”?

The service rules governing the post of Horticulture Development Officer are “U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993”

6(3)

Whether the eligibility qualification for the post of Horticulture Development Officer, in terms of the aforesaid rules, if so applicable, is “B.Sc.(Ag.) or equivalent Degree in Horticulture from a recognized University or Institute”?

The eligibility qualification for the post of Horticulture Development Officer is “किसी मान्यता प्राप्त विश्वविद्यालय या संस्थान से उद्यान में विज्ञान स्नातक (कृषि) बी0एस0सी0 (कृषि) या उद्यान विषय में समकक्ष उपाधि /“

6(4)

If so, whether the respondent could deviate from the eligibility qualification prescribed in the rules?

The respondent could not deviate from the eligibility qualification prescribed in the rules.

6(5)

Whether the qualification prescribed for the post of Horticulture Development Officer (Horticulture and Food Processing Department) science degree in “B.Sc. Horticulture from recognized University or Institution (Agriculture), B.Sc.(Ag.) or graduate in Horticulture?

The qualification prescribed for the post of Horticulture Development Officer (Horticulture and Food Processing Department) is “किसी मान्यता प्राप्त विश्वविद्यालय या संस्थान से उद्यान में विज्ञान स्नातक (कृषि) बी0एस0सी0 (कृषि) या उद्यान विषय में समकक्ष उपाधि/”

7

The respondent should particularly and categorically state as to what is the meaning of “B.Sc. Horticulture (Agriculture)”

The meaning of “B.Sc. Horticulture (Agriculture)” is that the candidate should have B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree with Horticulture as a subject.

Note: The candidates who have filled B.Sc. (Ag.) as name of degree and ‘Horticulture’ as a subject in Educational Qualifications details in Online Application Form have already been considered in preliminary exam result.”

From the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, it emerges that the post of Horticulture Development Officer, for which the advertisement is issued, is the same as the post of District Horticulture Officer mentioned in Appendix A(2), Section B(2) of the U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993. It is also not in dispute that the Service Rules, governing the post of Horticulture Development Officer, are the said U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993.

Though, in respect of the third query, mentioned in Point 6(3), the answer given is as found in the aforesaid tabulation, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 states that the minimum qualification, prescribed under the U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993 for the aforesaid post, is B.Sc. (Agriculture), or equivalent degree in Horticulture from a recognized University or Institute. He refers to the answer given to the query at Point No. 7 to submit that, without amendment of the Rules, the department had, after the issuance of the advertisement in question, stated that candidates, who have undergone B.Sc. (Agriculture), should have studied Horticulture as a subject for being eligible to be considered for the post of Horticulture Development Officer. The meaning of the qualification “B.Sc. Horticulture (Agriculture)” has been explained as “B.Sc.(Agriculture) degree with Horticulture as a subject”.

From the aforesaid, it is clear that under the Statutory Rules, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Horticulture Development Officer is only B.Sc. (Agriculture), or relevant degree in Horticulture from a recognized University or Institute, which could mean either B.Sc. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. (Horticulture). The further stipulation that a candidate who has studied B.Sc. (Agriculture), should have studied the subject of Horticulture, is the condition, which has no basis in the Statutory Service Rules. If the respondents were so minded, it could have amended the U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993, which has not been done. As aforesaid, this condition has been stipulated only after issuance of the advertisement in question. Moreover, the expression “B.Sc. Horticulture (Agriculture)” makes no sense, and it is only now that the respondents have clarified that it means “B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree with Horticulture as a subject”.

In the light of the aforesaid, we allow the present Writ Petition, considering the fact that the petitioner has studied B.Sc. (Agriculture) course, as is evident from the provisional degree certificate issued to the petitioner of having passed B.Sc. (Agriculture)-Hons. from Motherhood University, Roorkee.

Even though, under the Service Rules applicable, it is not necessary for the petitioner to have undergone any course in Horticulture, as a matter of fact, his statement of marks shows that he has, indeed, undergone a course in “Breeding of Horticultural Crops” in the Second Year (Academic Session: 2016-2017); and “Post Harvest Management and Value Addition of Fruits and Vegetables” & “Disease of Horticultural Crops and their Management” courses in the Third Year (Academic Session: 2017-18).

Consequently, the petitioner is fully qualified to offer his candidature for the post of Horticulture Development Officer. We, accordingly, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the mains examination, since the petitioner has secured marks higher than the cut-off marks, fixed by the respondents, in the preliminary examination.

Consequently, the Office Memorandum dated 21.07.2022, rejecting the representation made by the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates, is quashed.

We further direct the respondents to implement this decision in respect of other candidates as well, who are similarly stuated.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms.

In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.