Mehtab Singh Bhati vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.—By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents to treat his qualifications at par with Clause 5 of the Advertisement dt. 15th February 2013 (Annex. P/1) issued by the respondent department for making direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner has further prayed that he has rendered military services for more than 26 years and is having the experience of computer job and as such he is liable to be declared eligible to compete for direct recruitment to the post of LDC pursuant to advertisement Annex. P/1. For claiming the aforementioned reliefs, the petitioner has, inter-alia, averred in the petition that he is possessing the qualifications of 10+2 and has undergone the computer course and Clk S/D Training for 32 weeks in the Indian Army. As per the version of the petitioner, he is eligible to compete for direct recruitment to the post of LDC pursuant to advertisement Annex. P/1 issued by the respondent. After issuance of the advertisement, when the petitioner submitted his application form online, he was called for verification of his documents on 31st May 2013 and on that day when the petitioner appeared before the respondents, the documents were not verified by the concerned authority and the petitioner was orally informed that he is ineligible for direct recruitment to the post of LDC. In the petition, the petitioner has also mentioned the chequered history about his 26 years'' service career with the Indian Army and has also highlighted his efficient services which he has discharged. The petitioner has also mentioned in the petition that during his entire service tenure he has earned many accolades. As per recitals contained in the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that in view of the fact that he has undergone computer course and Clk S/D Training for 32 weeks in the Indian Army, he is eligible to compete for direct recruitment to the post of LDC.

No formal reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is eligible to compete for selection to the post of LDC is per-se bereft of any merit. The eligibility conditions for direct recruitment to the post of LDC is prescribed in Clause 5 of advertisement Annex. P/1 with clarity and precision, which is reproduced as infra:

In the light of prescribed qualification, if the qualifications of the petitioner are examined, then it will ipso facto reveal that he falls short of the requisite qualification insisted for the post.

It is a trite law that Court cannot regulate prescription of qualifications and it is essentially for the rule making body and the employer to lay down such qualifications. In my considered view, prescribing qualification is the sole prerogative of the rule making authority and the employer and a prospective candidate is having no right to suggest as to what ought or ought not to be the qualification for a particular job. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the qualifications which the petitioner is possessing be treated equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, is misplaced. My this view is fortified by a decision of Apex Court in case of V.K. Sood Vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation and others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that prescription of qualifications for appointment to any post is not the function of the Court and it is essentially for the rulemaking authority or employer to regulate the method of recruitment and to prescribe qualifications. The Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:--

Thus it would be clear that, in the exercise of the rule making power, the President or authorized person is entitled to prescribe method of recruitment, qualifications both educational as well as technical for appointment or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. The rules thus having been made in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that the authorities have prescribed tailor made qualifications to suit the stated individuals whose names have been mentioned in the appeal. Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. The rules prescribed qualifications for eligibility and the suitability of the appellant would be tested by the Union Public Service Commission.

In view of above, no case is made out for interference, and the petition merits dismissal. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.