Rajiv Kaloria and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of Clause 8 in Advertisement No. 2 dated 28.04.2014 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission for filling up 123 temporary posts of Veterinary Surgeon (HVS-II) in Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, Haryana.

The challenge to this clause in the advertisement is based upon the fact that the candidate is required to possess the qualification and experience as is to be determined on or before 27.05.2014, the closing date for receipt of the applications. This, the petitioners assert, is an arbitrary condition imposed by the respondents in the advertisement, which is contrary to Rule 4(2) of the Haryana Veterinary and Allied (Group-B) Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ''1996 Rules''). According to this sub-rule (2), a person in whose case a certificate of eligibility is necessary, may be admitted to an examination or interview conducted by the Commission or any other recruitment authority. The rider is that the offer of appointment may be given only after the necessary eligibility certificate has been issued to him by the Government.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners have passed their 5 years'' Course and have been issued the Detailed-Marks Sheet. On the basis of the Detailed-Marks Sheet, they have been provisionally registered with the Haryana Veterinary Council. One of the certificates, which has been issued to petitioner No. 1 dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) has been referred to in this regard. He, on this basis, contends that now petitioners are undergoing the Compulsory Rotating Internship, which the petitioners No. 1 to 4 would complete on 09.08.2014 and petitioners No. 5 to 31 would complete on 16.08.2014 and on completion of the said internship, the petitioners will be issued a certificate/degree, which would entitle them to be appointed to the post in question.

Counsel contends that fixing of the cut off date in the advertisement by the respondents i.e. 27.05.2014 is against the Statutory Rules. The qualification and eligibility is to be determined at the time when the petitioners, on their selection, join the service. He, therefore, on this basis, contends that there cannot be any cut off date fixed in the advertisement by the respondents as the Statutory Rules do not provide for such a cut off date to be fixed. In support of this contention, he relies upon Rule 4(2) of the 1996 Rules. He contends that since the Statutory Rules do not provide for a cut off date except that the candidate, on the date of his appointment, should be eligible for appointment as per the Statutory Rules, no artificial date can be fixed by either the Commission or the respondent-department for determining the eligibility of a candidate. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhupinderpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, . He has referred to para-13 of the said judgment to contend that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications. If there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. He, accordingly, contends that the cut off date fixed by the respondents being contrary to Statutory Rules cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside. He states that the Statutory Rules are enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, have a force of law and in the absence of any legislation contrary to the same, the Statutory Rules would have precedence over the decisions taken by the Government on the administrative side.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case.

The judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners, of the Supreme Court i.e. Bhupinderpal Singh''s case (supra) and the principles laid down therein as also the assertion of the counsel for the petitioners that the Statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution have the force of law, cannot be disputed with nor it can be disputed that if the Statutory Rules provide for a specified cut off date or referable period which would determine the eligibility of a candidate, the same shall have precedence over a decision which may be taken on the administrative side by the departmental authorities or the competent authorities.

For determination of the controversy in the present case reference to Rule 4(2) of the 1996 Rules is essential, which reads as follows:-

4(2) A person in whose case a certificate of eligibility is necessary, may be admitted to an examination or interview conducted by the Commission or any other recruiting authority, but the offer of appointment may be given only after the necessary eligibility certificate has been issued to him by the Government.

A perusal of the above Rule would indicate that a person, in whose case a certificate of eligibility is necessary can be admitted to an examination or interview conducted by the Commission or any other recruiting authority and the same would have to be produced by the candidate at the time when the offer of appointment has been given to him. What is recorded under this Rule is mere formality of issuance of a certificate and may not be treated as a barring factor for a candidate to be considered for appointment. However, the eligibility of the candidate should not be in question at the time or the date, which may be specified by the competent authority as a cut off date. This Rule does not deal with a situation where a candidate is not eligible for consideration for appointment but it deals with a situation where merely a certificate being not in possession of the candidate should not be a ground for rejection of the candidature of such a person.

As per Rule 7, Appendix-B of the 1996 Rules, the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon are as follows:-

A perusal of the above would show that apart from other requirements, a candidate must possess a degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry from a recognized University or Institution.

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners although have passed their written examinations but without successful completion of the Compulsory Rotating Internship, which is an integral part of the course, will not be entitled to the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. Meaning thereby, that the petitioners are not Graduates in the field. This is apparent from the Provisional Registration Certificate issued by the Haryana Veterinary Council dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) where it has been mentioned as follows:-

Provisional Registration No. 383

This is to certify that Dr. Rajiv Kaloria D/S/O Sh. R.A. Kaloria, Admission No. 2008V39B who has successfully completed all the course requirements of B.V.Sc. & A.H. Programme at college of Veterinary Sciences, LLRUVAS, Hisar has been provisionally registered with Haryana Veterinary Council.

This registration is valid for the duration of Compulsory Rotating Internship i.e. upto 09.08.2014 required under the aforesaid professional degree programme.

Note: 1. The holder shall be entitled to practice medicine in the approved institution for the purpose of such training.

The Certificate is to be surrendered in original at the time of final registration.

Since the petitioners have yet to compete successfully the Compulsory Rotating Internship, they cannot be said to be possessing the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post in question i.e. Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. The petitioners do not possess the professional qualifications for the post in question.

The question of cut off date, as has been sought to be projected by the counsel for the petitioners relying upon Rule 4(2) of the 1996 Rules, as has been held above, only relate to the production of a certificate of eligibility. It does not extend the period of eligibility for the post in question. If the contention of the counsel for the petitioners is accepted then all persons, who have taken admission in Bachelors Course of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, can apply and if selected can, after the completion of the course, produce the degree/certificate and join the post. This would be totally absurd and does not stand the test of reasonableness. There has to be a certainty in the process of selection and to start with it should be the date on which the eligibility of a candidate has to be seen.

Present is a case where a specified qualification is prescribed under the Statutory Rules, which would determine the eligibility of a candidate. The 1996 Rules, which would govern the appointment to the post in question, do not prescribe any cut off date with regard to the eligibility of a candidate nor does they state that the eligibility will be determined of a candidate on the date of his appointment, as has been sought to be asserted by the counsel for the petitioners. Rule 4(2) only deals with a situation where a certificate has not been issued to the eligible candidate by the date of submitting application but may have passed the required examination and eligible in all respects, it cannot be a ground for not considering the candidature of such a candidate for the said post.

If that be the situation under the Statutory Rules as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Bhupinderpal Singh''s case (supra), there being no cut off date, by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be specified by a candidate seeking a public appointment in the relevant service Rules, the authority competent for fixing such a date in those circumstances can do so. That is precisely what the respondents in the present case have done. They have fixed the eligibility to be considered on the last date of receipt of the applications with regard to the qualifications and experience i.e. 27.05.2014 which is in accordance with law.

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.