Pradeep Jangir And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 28.8.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petitions preferred

by the appellants seeking declaration that they are eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level II) (English) and a direction to the

respondents to accord them appointment on the said post as per their merit, have been dismissed.

The facts relevant are that Director, Elementary Education Rajashan issued an advertisement dated 31.7.18 for recruitment to the post of Teacher

Gr.III (Level II) (English) for Non-Tribal Sub Plan ('TSP') Area. The eligibility qualification prescribed for the recruitment to the said post was as

under:

Graduation and 2- year diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) or Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in

Education (B.Ed).

Or Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure)

Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.

Or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) or Senior Secondary (or its

equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed.

Or Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) (Special Education)

Further, for recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III in English, the candidate must have passed Graduation or equivalent qualification with English as

optional subject and must have passed REET/RTET in the applied subject with 60% marks.

The appellants having degrees of Graduation in Science, Post Graduation in English and B.Ed., applied for appointment on the said post, participated

in the selection process and their names were included in the merit list but the appointment was denied to them inasmuch as, they were not having

English as an optional subject in their Graduation. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred writ petitions before this Court, which stand dismissed by the

learned Single Judge. Hence, these appeals.

The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors.:

(2019) 2 SCC 404, held that the appellants having Post Graduation degree in English cannot take away their ineligibility of lacking requisite and

statutory qualification under Rule 266 (3) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996') and consequently, the rejection of their

candidature cannot be faulted.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the degree of Post Graduation in English is certainly a higher qualification than the

Graduation with English as an optional subject and thus, the appellants cannot be held ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level II)

(English) on account of they having passed the Graduation in Science with English as compulsory subject in the first year of Three Years degree

course. Learned counsel submitted that acquisition of higher qualification pre-supposes acquisition of lower qualification and therefore, the action of

the respondents in rejecting candidature of the appellants is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge has decided the writ petitions

on the basis of decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Anita & Ors.: (2015) 2SCC 170 and Zahoor Ahmad's case (supra), which are

not applicable to the fact situation in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the degree of Post Graduation in English has to be treated an

equivalent qualification to Graduation with the English as an optional subject and thus, viewing from any angle, the appellants cannot be held ineligible

for appointment to the said post. Learned counsel submitted that vide notification dated 13.11.19 issued by the National Teacher Education Council

(NCTE), the qualification stands substituted by 'Graduation or Post Graduation and B.Ed.' and therefore, the appellants cannot be denied appointment

on the ground that they have not acquired the qualification of Graduation with English as an optional subject. Relying upon the decisions of Supreme

Court in Jyoti K.K. Vs. Kerla Public Service Commission & Ors. : 2010(15) SCC 596 and Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan: (2012) 3 SCC,

129, learned counsel submitted that the word 'equivalent' has to be given a reasonable meaning and thus, the appellants who have acquired

qualification of Post Graduation in English and thus, having adequate knowledge of the subject cannot be denied appointment on the post on the ground

that they have not passed their Graduation with English as an optional subject. Relying upon a Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan &

Anr. vs. Deepak Bariya: D.B.Special Appeal(Writ) No.598/18, learned counsel contended that English as a compulsory subject in Graduation satisfies

the eligibility criteria and therefore, the denial of appointment is unjustified for this reason also.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is imperative for a candidate to possess statutory qualification prescribed

for appointment to the concerned post and thus, the appellants having acquired the degree of Post Graduation in English is inconsequential. In this

regard, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather's case (supra). Learned counsel submitted that the

decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jyoti K.K. and Anita have also been duly considered by the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather's

case (supra) and thus, the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the basis of Zahoor Ahmad Rather's case (supra) cannot be faulted with.

Learned counsel submitted that the Bench decision of this Court in Deepak Bariya's case does not help the appellants inasmuch as in the said case

though the candidate was not having English as optional subject in Graduation, however, he studied English as compulsory subject in First, Second and

Third Year of Graduation course whereas in the instant cases, the appellants have acquired the degree of Graduation in Science and they were having

English as compulsory subject and only First Year of Three Year degree course.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

It is well settled that it is the prerogative of the State as employer to prescribe the eligibility qualification for recruitment to any post. It is not within

the domain of the Court to read something in the statutory qualification prescribed, which is not there and expand the eligibility qualification prescribed

or to prescribe a qualification different than the statutorily prescribed on the basis of possible intendment. The candidate possessing the higher

qualification will not always satisfy the requirement of lower eligibility qualification prescribed for any post in service by the State as an employer,

taking into consideration the functions to be discharged by the candidate to be appointed on the concerned post.

In Jyoti K.K.'s case (supra), the qualification for recruitment to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) was inter alia Diploma in Electrical

Engineering of a recognized institution. The appellants therein holders of B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelor's degree in Electrical

Engineering were denied appointment on the post on the ground that they did not possess the necessary qualification. The Supreme Court while

agreeing with the view of the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot be in any manner

whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The Court observed that the High Court was also justified in stating that higher

qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the rule to

the effect that such of those higher qualification which presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient

for the post. The Court further observed that for a higher post when the direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained,

obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post. Accordingly, the Court

held that the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification of Diploma in that subject prescribed

for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.

In Chandrakala Trivedi's case (supra), the Court while dealing with the issue with regard to meaning to be given to the word 'equivalent' observed

that the normal rule would be that candidate with higher qualification is deemed to fulfill the lower qualification for a post but that higher qualification

has to be in the same channel. Further, where the particular qualification prescribed is to be relevant for discharging the function of that post and at

the same time the Government is able demonstrate that for want of the said qualification, a candidate may not be suitable for that post even if he

possesses a 'better' qualification but that better qualification has no relevance with the functions attached with that post. Accordingly, for the Assistant

Teacher who are meant to impart education at primary level the degree of B.Ed. with the specialisation in vocational education was not treated to be

equivalent qualification qua basic B.Ed. Degree. The Court observed that where proficiency in basic subjects taught at primary level is required, the

vocational training would not serve any purpose.

In Anita's case (supra), the Supreme Court while taking into consideration the observations in Jyoti K.K.'s case (supra) that the possession of

higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification keeping in view the statutorily rule involved therein, observed as under :

It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents possess higher qualifications, then the

qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for

us to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into

consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid observations in Jyoti K.K. Case, permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory rule, in the

decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder : (SCC p.598 para 6) ""6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows :

'10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders of Standing

Orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and *such of those higher qualifications which

presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post*.' "" (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of

the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the posts.

Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory provision authorising the appointment of persons with higher

qualifications.

In Zahoor Ahmad Rather's case (supra) where the issue involved was whether the qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics

& Communication would satisfy the requirement of prescribed eligibility qualification of Matriculation with ITI in Electric Trade, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court again distinguishing the decision in Jyoti K.K.'s case (supra) categorically held :

26.We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita

(supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a

higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a

matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or

function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can

be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter

for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher

qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the

ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge

and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.

While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job,

the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to

the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is

trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that

require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily.

That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification

which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the

decision in Jyoti KK turned.

Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point

of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral

entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible."" (emphasis

supplied)

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad's case (supra) wherein the decision in Jyoti K.K.'s case have been

thoroughly considered and distinguished, it can be safely concluded that a candidate for recruitment to any post must possess the requisite qualification

statutorily prescribed and the possession of the higher qualification would not necessarily make a candidate eligible for recruitment to the post

concerned. In the instant case, keeping in view the fact that Teacher Gr.III is required to discharge the function of teaching to the students of primary

level II that is Class VI to VIII and thus, the eligibility qualification of Graduation with English as optional subject becomes relevant and the higher

qualification of M.A. in English cannot be considered to be an equivalent qualification for recruitment to the post. It is pertinent to note that the

appellants are Graduate in Science and they had compulsory subject English only in First Year of Three Year degree course and therefore, even

otherwise, it cannot be said that the appellants have acquired the degree of Post Graduation in English in the same channel of courses of studies. In

this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that degree of Post Graduation in

English possessed by the appellants cannot take away the ineligibility of their lacking requisite and statutory qualification under Rule 266(3) of the

Rules of 1996 and consequently, rejection of their candidature by the respondents, cannot be faulted.

Coming to the decision of this Court in Deepak Bariya's case, it is noticed that the same was decided by a Coordinate Bench relying upon decision

dated 7.3.18 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.528/2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the RPSC was dismissed observing that the respondents

therein, were having Graduation degree with English as compulsory paper in First, Second and Third Year of Three Year degree course, the object of

the rule of adequate knowledge in the subject for which the candidate offers candidature to be appointed as a Teacher stands satisfied.

As already discussed, the appellants have acquired the degree of Graduation in Science with English as compulsory subject in First Year of Three

Year degree course and they have not studied the English in all the three years of Three Years degree course and thus, the decision in Deepak

Bariya's case also does not help the appellants in any manner. Moreover, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad's

case (supra) discussed above, the appellants are not entitled for any relief whatsoever.

For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference by us in exercise of intra-

Court appeal jurisdiction.

In the result, the special appeals fail, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.