Prashant Verma vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Addl. A.G. for the respondent State and learned counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short JPSC).

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 29.11.2013, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 1637 of 2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, claiming appointment on the post of Director of Agriculture, has been dismissed by the Writ Court.

The advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment on the post of Director of Agriculture, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal. The advertisement shows that apart from the educational qualifications required for the post, the experiences required for appointment to the post, were also given. The minimum educational qualification was shown to be M.Sc. in Agricultural Science, and additional qualification was shown to be Ph.D, for which weightage of 10 % marks was to be given. As regards the experiences required for the post, it was mentioned in the advertisement that the work experience of twenty years and administrative experience of five years were required for appointment to the said post.

The appellant writ petitioner participated in the selection process. The provisional recommendation was made by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission in favour of the appellant. Since the appellant was not appointed, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 3048 of 2011. During pendency of that writ petition, an order was passed rejecting the claim of the appellant on 14.7.2011 by the respondent State, whereby, he was denied the work experience and the administrative experience, which he claimed to have gained while working in NGO and while undergoing Ph.D course in Bidhan Chandra Agriculture University, West Bengal. By order dated 2.7.2012, the writ petition was, however, disposed of, and the matter was remanded to the respondent authorities for re-considering whether the work experience and administrative experience, as claimed by the appellant, were applicable to him or not. The State preferred L.P.A. No. 324 of 2012 against the aforesaid order dated 2.7.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3048 of 2011, which was dismissed.

Subsequently, the order was passed on 18.2.2013, rejecting the claim of the appellant, in which, it was stated that the eligibility criteria of administrative experience of five years is a mandatory condition, and the appellant writ petitioner did not possess the required qualification of twenty years of work experience and five years of administrative experience. It was also stated in the order that the period of three years and three months, during which, the writ petitioner persuaded the Ph.D. course, could not be taken as work experience, as the same was the higher educational qualification for which, there was a provision for giving weightage of additional 10 % marks to the candidate, which was given in the case of the writ petitioner as well. Since the writ petitioner was not having the mandatory administrative and work experiences, his candidature was rejected again.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant writ petitioner again moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1637 of 2013, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 29.11.2013, holding that five years experience in the administrative capacity was required in addition to twenty years of work experience in the field. The Hon'ble Single Judge did not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a candidate is required to have work experience of twenty years only, out of which five year should be in the administrative capacity, and holding that the writ petitioner did not possess the additional experience of five years in the administrative capacity, besides 20 years of work experience, the writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present L.P.A. has been filed by the appellant writ petitioner.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards Annexure-5 to the memo of appeal, which is the certificate granted by a Reader, in Bidhan Chandra Agricultural University, West Bengal, showing that the appellant had undergone the research work under his supervision in the said University, and also stating that the appellant had the research experience of more than three years in the department. Learned senior counsel has also drawn our attention towards Annexure-6 to the memo of appeal, which is the certificate dated 1.8.2010, granted by Holy Cross Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hazaribag, which is admittedly a private NGO, stating that the appellant had worked in that NGO from 1.12.1990 for a period of 19 years and 8 months. A separate certificate has been issued again on the prayer of the appellant by the said NGO, on 15.9.2011, showing that the appellant had also worked in administrative capacity during the aforesaid period. Placing reliance on these certificates, learned counsel submitted that the appellant had both the experiences required by the advertisement, i.e., twenty years of work experience and five years of administrative experience. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge has slipped into a grave error while holding that both these experiences were required to be separately gained and the candidate was required to have the work experience of twenty years and in addition to that, five years experience in the administrative capacity. It is further submitted that it is nowhere provided in the advertisement that such experience is to be gained in the Government service only, and accordingly, the respondent State could not insist that such experience had to be gained in the Government service. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Learned Addl. A.G. appearing for the respondent State, as also learned counsel for the respondent JPSC, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer. Learned Addl. A.G. has submitted that the appellant was not having the required twenty years of work experience in the Government organization and five years of administrative experience. It is submitted by learned Addl. A.G. that both these experiences were the mandatory requirements in the advertisement, and the work experience gained in the private NGO could not be taken into consideration. It is also submitted by learned Addl. A.G. that even if such experience is taken into consideration, the appellant had the work experience of only 19 years and 8 months. The appellant had also undergone Ph.D. course for three years and three months in Bidhan Chandra Agriculture University, for which, neither the work experience nor the administrative experience could be granted to the appellant, as during this period the appellant was only pursuing his higher studies, for which the weightage of marks was given to him. It is submitted by learned Addl. A.G. that even if the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the candidate is required to have the work experience of twenty years, out of which, five years should be in the administrative capacity, is accepted, the appellant was neither having the twenty years of work experience, nor five years of administrative experience. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the JPSC, that for undergoing the research work, the appellant was granted the weightage of 10 % marks separately, and this period of three years and three months could not be taken either as work experience or as administrative experience. Learned counsels for the respondents have, accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and taking into consideration the required experience for the post as given in the advertisement, as contained in Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal, we find that there is nothing to show that the administrative experience of five years was required to be in addition to twenty years of work experience in the field. As such we find ourselves unable to agree with the findings given by the Hon'ble Single Judge, that the five years of administrative experience was required in addition to twenty years of work experience in the field. There is nothing in the advertisement to support this proposition.

However, we find force in the submission of learned counsels appearing for the respondents, that the period of three years and three months, during which, the appellant had undergone the research work in Bidhan Chandra Agriculture University, can neither be treated as work experience of the appellant nor it can be treated as administrative experience of the appellant. During this period the appellant was only pursuing his higher studies and the appellant was given the weightage in marks for the said higher educational qualification. Even the advertisement issued for the post, as contained in Annexure-1, clearly shows Ph.D, as additional educational qualification, for which weightage of 10 % marks was to be given, and there is no dispute to the fact that this weightage had been given in case of the appellant as well. Since Ph.D, was shown as additional educational qualification only, even as per the advertisement, the period undergoing this study could not be counted either for work experience or administrative experience. After deducting this period of three years and three months, the appellant was not having either the required work experience of twenty years or the administrative experience of five years.

This apart, the advertisement further shows that the last date for submission of the application was 15.03.2010. By letter dated 02.07.2010, as contained in Annexure-8 to the memo of appeal, the appellant was called for appearing in the interview for the post, to be held on 12.07.2010, with all his documents relating to educational and work experiences, and according to the appellant's case, the interview was held on that date, and as directed, he also appeared with the relevant documents before the Deputy Secretary of the Department on 29.07.2010. However, the work experience certificates, which have been brought on record by the appellant as Annexure-6, show that these certificates have been issued to the appellant on the later dates, i.e., on 01.08.2010 and 15.09.2011. As such, we find that even these work experience certificates were not available to the appellant on the date of interview, or on the date he appeared before the Deputy Secretary of the Department with the relevant documents. Accordingly, in the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that no case is made out, for holding that the appellant was having the required work and administrative experiences for appointment to the post of Director of Agriculture.

Though, we do not agree with the reasoning of the Hon'ble Single Judge given in the impugned Judgment dated 29.11.2013, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1637 of 2013, but we do not find any illegality in the end result of the writ application, i.e., dismissing the writ application. No case is made out for granting any relief to the appellant writ petitioner in exercise of the Letters Patent Appellate jurisdiction.

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.