Raja Ram vs Rajasthan Agriculture University and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of LDC against the vacancies reserved for the cadre of Class IV, he was superseded and persons junior to him were promoted as LDC vide order dt.9th November, 1994 [Ann.8A].

Petitioner joined service in the cadre of Class IV on 24th February, 1981. While in service the respondent acquired the qualification of Prathama & Madhyama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad - documents to this effect have been placed on record as Ann.2 & Ann.3 respectively. He made a reference of Rajasthan University Employees [Non-teaching] Recruitment Rules, 1974. Under the Scheme of Rules of University of Rajasthan, vacancies were reserved for the members of Class IV employees and their eligibility was laid down under Ordinance 359A which was amended by University of Rajasthan in July, 1989. It is relevant to mention that in terms of amendment those who are holding qualification of Prathama/Madhyama as held by the petitioner were considered to be ineligible for the post of LDC.

So far as State of Rajasthan is concerned, by notification dt.28th June, 1985 became effective from 1st April, 1985 made an amendment under Rules of 1957 and holders of equivalent qualification to Board of Secondary Education were deleted - as a consequence whereof, persons who are holding qualification of Prathama/Madhyama were also considered to be ineligible under the Rules for the post of LDC.

Respondent-Agriculture University prepared list of such Class IV employees who were eligible for the post of LDC taking note of the amendment made by the State Government dt.28th June, 1985 vide order dt.16th/17th February, 1993 and obviously, it does not contain the name of petitioner since he was not holding the qualification from Board of Secondary Education which is a requisite qualification for consideration for promotion and such eligible persons in the cadre of Class IV were promoted as LDC vide order Ann.R/1 dt.9th November, 1994. Counsel for petitioner submits that he was holding qualification which is equivalent to Secondary from Board of Secondary Education prior to amendment notification, of which reference has been made by the respondents, as such merely because the respondent has clubbed the vacancies of earlier years and filled in 1994 that in no manner deprive the petitioner from his fair right of consideration for promotion to the post of LDC.

Counsel further submits that since no rules were framed by the Rajasthan Agriculture University of its own as such Rules of University of Rajasthan were followed for all practical purposes. An amendment was made under Ordinance 359A in July, 1989 and qualification possessed by the petitioner was not de-recognized either by Government of Rajasthan or by University of Rajasthan. In absence whereof, the petitioner could not be deprived of his consideration despite the fact that he was one of the senior person in the cadre of Class IV as is evident from seniority list published by the respondents Ann. 4 dt. 13th March, 1992 and in such circumstances, denial of consideration for promotion is wholly arbitrary and so also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for petitioner submits that in view of further amendment made by notification dt.5th December, 1987 the petitioner was holding the qualification of Prathma and was eligible under the Rules, 1957 which the respondents have not taken note of while making promotion for the post of LDC.

Reply has been filed by the respondents, but no one has appeared to assist this Court. However, in their reply, it has been averred that respondents have taken note of notification of the State Government dt.28th June, 1985 whereby amendment was made in the qualification for LDC w.e.f. 1st April, 1985 and since the petitioner was not holding the qualification for the post of LDC in view of amendment notification dt.28th June, 1985, was not considered to be eligible and has rightly not been promoted. However, his seniority has not been disputed by the respondents. But what has been stressed upon is that since he was not holding the qualification to hold the post of LDC when promotion exercise was undertaken by the respondents in 1994, he was rightly denied promotion of the post of LDC. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that after notification dt.28th June, 1985, further amendment was made vide notification dt.5th December, 1987 under Rule 12(2) of the Rules and apart from qualification of High School or Secondary Examination, Pravesika of Rajasthan Secondary Education Board or University or Board recognized by the Government for the purpose of this rule was also added under Rule 12 of the Rules.

I have heard counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record.

So far as amendment notification dt.28th June, 1985 which was given effect from 1st April, 1985 under Rule 12(2) of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 came up for consideration before the Larger Bench of this Court reported in Shanker Lal Verma v. The Raj. State Electricity Board 1999 (1) WLC 1. After examining the controversy, it has been finally held that it was not the case of de-recognition of qualification under the amendment notification dt.28th June, 1985. However, certain qualifications have been deleted which cannot be said to be de-recognition of that qualification but those who hold the qualification after amendment notification dt.28th June, 1985, it will be considered to be eligible to hold the qualification in terms of amendment. Relevant Paras 32 & 33 of judgment [supra], which is relevant for the present purposes, are reproduced as under:

It is also to be noted that these are not the cases of the derecognition of a degree, diploma or certificate issued by a particular institution because of some fault on the part of the institution awarding the same. The cases of derecognition of particular institutions and consequently derecognition of the degrees, diplomas and certificates issued by such institutions have to be distinguished from service matters in which certain qualifications are deleted from the rules. Removing or deleting a qualification from eligibility criteria cannot be said to be derecognition of that qualification or a degree, diploma or certificate. It only means that the degree, diploma or certificate has ceased to be the eligibility qualification for a particular post. It does not take away from the candidate, the degree, diploma or certificate conferred by the institutions. For example, if the eligibility qualification for a particular post was earlier ''Graduate'' and by amendment, it is raised to ''postgraduate''.

It does not mean that degree possessed by the candidates are derecognized. What it simply means is that the eligibility qualifications are enhanced and a higher qualification is now required. It is also be taken into account that purpose behind amendment to the rule was not to derecognise any degree, diploma or certificate, it was only to delete certain qualifications from the eligibility criteria. This may be because of the changed situation in which the employer may find that candidates who have passed the Secondary School Examination from the statutory Boards and Universities are available in sufficient numbers and it was not necessary to consider the candidates having equivalent qualifications. The respondents cannot be forced to accept equivalence of certain qualifications and to accept such equivalence for all times to come.

In the result, we conclude that there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the amended qualifications shall not apply to them because they had acquired the equivalent qualifications prior to the amendment of the rules. In our opinion, the amended rule and the qualifications will apply even to the candidates who have obtained the equivalent qualifications prior to the date of enforcement of amended rule. However, the amended qualifications shall not be applicable to the vacancies which had occurred prior to the date of enforcement of the amended rule and such vacancies shall be filled-in in accordance with the qualifications prescribed as on the date of occurrence of vacancies. We, therefore, answer the reference accordingly. The petitions shall now be listed before appropriate Bench for decision in accordance with law in the light of this decision.

Indisputably, in terms of amendment notification dt.28th June, 1985 qualification possessed by the petitioner stood deleted and on the said premise, the petitioner could not have been considered to be eligible for promotion to the post of LDC and for that reason alone, his name was not included in the list of eligible Class IV employees who are to be considered for promotion to the post of LDC vide order dt.16th/17th February, 1993 [Ann.6] and in absence of holding eligibility for promotion to the post of LDC certainly could not be considered when promotions were made to the post of LDC by the respondents vide order dt.9th November, 1994. As regards submission made by counsel for petitioner about the vacancies of earlier years which were not filled by the respondents for the relevant year in question, is of no substance for the reason that no provision has been brought to the notice of this Court that respondents were under an obligation to determine year wise vacancies and to fill the same in accordance with procedure laid down.

In the instant case, when process was initiated by the respondents in 1994 certainly qualification applicable in 1994 alone could have been taken note of by the respondents and which certainly make the petitioner ineligible for the post of LDC.

So far as submission made with respect to amendment made by the University of Rajasthan in its Ordinance 359A will be of no assistance for the reason that University also made amendment in July, 1989 which is a corresponding amendment made by the State of Rajasthan vide its notification dt.28th June, 1985 and since the present promotions were made in 1994, certainly as per amendment made by the University of Rajasthan in July, 1989 the petitioner could not be considered to be eligible for the post of LDC in 1994 when promotions were made. However, respondents have denied in their reply that Rules of the University are applicable upon them. Submission made by the Counsel with regard to notification dt.5th December, 1987 is also of no substance for the reason that by later amendment Pravesika Examination from Board of Secondary Education was added as one of the condition of eligibility for the post of LDC. However, petitioner is not holding the Pravesika qualification from Rajasthan Secondary Education Board or from the Board recognized by the Government. In absence whereof, he could not be considered to be eligible for the post of LDC. Consequently, this Court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed.