Nishant Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Others

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintained by the petitioner against the respondents praying therein for the following substantive reliefs :­

(i) "That the respondents No.1 to 3 may be directed to produce on record appointment letter issued to respondent No.5 for appointment to the post of Inspector Grade­I in the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department and thereafter, same may very kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may be directed to consider and appoint the petitioner to the post of Inspector Grade­I in Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department."

As per the petitioner, an advertisement was issued by the respondents­Department for filling up one post of Inspector Grade­I in the pay band of Rs.10300­ 34800+3600 grade pay (on contract basis with monthly emoluments of Rs.10300+3600=13900 plus 125% of grade pay) reserved for persons with disabilities (hearing impaired/ hard of hearing) in the respondents­ Department. It has been submitted that perusal of advertisement Annexure P­1, shows that the essential qualification for the post of Inspector Grade­I was Bachelor's degree from a recognized University in Arts/Commerce/Science or its equivalent from a recognized University and the date of interview for the said post was fixed for 16.1.2020.

It has been submitted that the petitioner has passed Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech.) in Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering and as such being fully eligible, he applied for the post of Inspector Grade­I, meant for persons with disabilities. Further, the petitioner also belongs to said category and he was fully eligible to be considered for appointment against the post of Inspector Grade­I.

It has been averred that the date for interview was fixed for 16.1.2020 and the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 appeared before the Selection Committee, but due to heavy snowfall on that day, interview could not be held and the interview was postponed to 16.3.2020 and the call letter dated 28. 02.2020, Annexure P­4, was issued to him

It has been submitted that the petitioner vide application dated 27.2.2020 applied under Right to Information Act, to the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, seeking information as to whether the qualification of B.P.E. (Bachelor of Physical Education) was equivalent to Bachelor's degree in Arts/Commerce/Science.

It has been averred that only two candidates under disabled quota appeared for the post of Inspector Grade­I, before the Selection Committee on 16.3.2020, i.e. petitioner and respondent No.5 and the Selection Committee, was apprised verbally that respondent No.5 was not eligible, because the essential qualification required for the prescribed post was Bachelor in Arts/Science/Commerce, whereas respondent No.5 was possessing a degree of Bachelor of Physical Education, which is not equivalent to the Bachelor Degree, in Arts/Science/Commerce, for the reason that this degree pertains only to stream of Physical Education, therefore, implies that he had not studied other general subjects which are common in every stream like Arts, Science & Commerce. Whereas the degree of the petitioner is more relevant to the prescribed post, as he has studied all the subjects of Science i.e. Physics, Chemistry, English & Mathematics.

It has been submitted that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, for the post of Inspector Grade­I, educational qualification for the post is Bachelor in Arts, Science or Commerce or its equivalent from a recognized University. Further, the petitioner applied for the information under Right to Information Act, to the Himachal Pradesh University thereby seeking information that whether the qualification of Degree of Bachelor of Physical Education is equivalent to that of Bachelor's degree in Arts, Commerce or Science.

It has been submitted that in the interview, it was given to understand to the petitioner that the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education is not equivalent to B.A., B.Sc., or B.Com, however, said fact can be verified from the H.P. University only and as such, petitioner applied under Right to Information Act for information from Himachal Pradesh University. Further it has been submitted that the H.P. University though sent the requisite information, but mailed it at a wrong address, which was conveyed by it to the petitioner and the University later sent the requisite information to the petitioner, vide letter dated 22.6.2020. As per the said information, it is clear that the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education is not equivalent to B.A., B.Sc., or B.Com., but is a degree in its own stream. Further, on coming to know that respondent No.5 was not at all eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector Grade­I on the basis of his qualification, petitioner made a representation to the respondents, which has not been decided till date.

Reply to the petition filed and as per the respondents, since the petitioner has no cause of action and locus­standi to file the instant petition in view of information supplied by P.I.O.­cum­Section Officer(Acad.) H.P. University, Shimla, under RTI, vide letter dated 19. 11.2020, obtained by the father of replying respondent No.5 vide which it has been informed by the H.P. University that B.Tech. Degree in Electronics is not equivalent to Bachelor's degree in Science/ Arts/Commerce and both streams are different. It has been submitted that Annexure P­10 clearly shows that degree of B.P.E. is a Bachelor degree in its own stream. Moreover, the recruitment of replying respondent has been done in accordance with law after thoughtful consideration and prior clarifications qua educational qualifications of replying respondent by the recruiting authority.

It has been submitted that as per advertisement for the said post, the candidates, who were holding Bachelor degree in Arts/Science/Commerce or its equivalent were eligible and Annexure P­10 clearly shows that the degree of B.P.E., which is possessed by the replying respondent is a Bachelor degree in its own stream and on the other hand, final result sheet (breakup of marks) also clearly shows that the replying respondent is on better footing than the petitioner and has been obtained more marks than the petitioner in evaluation, hence, respondent No.5. has rightly been declared selected for the said post by the recruiting authority. Further, that as per the Department of Personnel, Govt. of H.P., the Bachelor degree in Physical Education has been declared as equivalent to the Bachelor's degree in Arts/Science/Commerce, hence, the recruitment of replying respondent No.5 to the said post is right as per the law. Hence, the replying respondents have prayed for dismissal of the instant petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, has argued that the Degree of respondent No.5 was not equivalent degree to the Bachelor's degree and it should not have been considered by the respondents and respondent No.5 could not have been appointed as Inspector Grade­I. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 has argued that Bachelor of the Physical Education is a Bachelor degree and the respondents have committed no irregularity in appointing respondent No.5.

Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has argued that respondent No.4 has supplied the required information as asked for.

Mr. Rajinder Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has argued that the Degree of respondent No.5 was a Bachelor's degree and he has rightly been appointed.

To appreciate the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record in detail.

It is the only question which requires consideration is that whether the Degree of respondent No.5 is a Bachelor's degree and he fulfills the qualification or not for the purpose of selection to the post of Inspector Grade­I. The candidates were called for evaluation of documents on 16.01.2020 at 11.00 a.m. Only two candidates, namely the petitioner and respondent No.5 appeared before the Selection Committee. Thereafter, again after seeking clarification from the Government as only two candidates were appeared. The respondents evaluated the documents and the petitioner and respondent No.5 appeared before the Departmental Selection Committee on 16.03.2020 and documents were evaluated by the Committee, as per the instruction dated 28.08.2017. Accordingly, respondent No.5 was declared first in merit and he was selected. Respondent No.5 has possessed the degree of Bachelor of Physical Education equivalent to Bachelor of Arts/ Commerce/ Science. We find that respondents have committed no illegality in considering the Bachelor of Physical Education degree as a Bachelor's degree, as respondent No.5 was Bachelor of Physical Education and the action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal, malafide or beyond the confines of legitimacy and action of the respondents also in accordance with law.

For the foregoing observations, we find no merit in the instant writ petition, which deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Pending application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed of.