Shuchi Pandey And Ors. vs State And Ors.

Arun Monga, J

Grievance of the petitioners arises out of an order dated 19.11.2013 (Annex.7), vide which their candidature for appearing in the interviews for the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, Technical Education Department, pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.06.2011, was rejected.

Briefly speaking, relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) advertised for 46 posts of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, requiring a First Class Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering / Technology or a First Class Master’s Degree in relevant branches for the teaching posts. The petitioners, having Bachelor’s Degree in Production & Industrial Engineering, also applied for the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering. The petitioners partly participated in the selection process.

2.1. However, on 21.11.2013, the petitioners' candidatures were rejected. They were told that the Bachelor of Engineering (Production & Industrial Engineering) was not equivalent to Mechanical Engineering. Although, they claim that their degree covered certain portions of it.

2.2. The petitioners met the respondents, asserting that their qualification was equivalent to a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering, supported by a letter from the Head of the Department (HOD) of Production & Industrial Engineering, dated 30.08.2013. They assert that a comparison of the syllabus between Mechanical Engineering and Production & Industrial Engineering reveals that 26 out of 37 subjects are overlapping, including Mathematics, Electricals and Electronics. But to no avail.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case record.

First and foremost, reference may be had to the educational qualification prescribed for the prospective candidates to work on the posts in question, as contained in the advertisement dated

28.06.2011 (Annex.1), which reads as below:

“शैक्षणिक योग्यताये-

कर्म संख्या १ से ७ तक के पदों के लिए:-

(1) First class Bachelor’s degree in appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology or First class master’s degree in appropriate branch for teaching posts in Humanities and Sciences.”

Perusal of the above clearly leaves no manner of doubt that Bachelors degree in specific appropriate Branch of Engineering / Technology i.e. in the present case Mechanical Engineering was required. Pertinently, there was no mention therein that those who have ‘equivalent degree’ shall also be entitled to apply for the post in question.

Had it been a case where an equivalent degree was mentioned as a requisite qualification to be entertained, in that event, I would have been one with the petitioners in their assertion that the rejection was carried out arbitrarily, as similarly situated other candidates have though been given benefit, but not the petitioners.

Based on the aforesaid advertised requisite qualifications, all those candidates, who have similar degrees as the petitioners in all likelihood would not have applied since there was no mention of equivalent degree. Thus, were rightly excluded from the eligibility qua the same. Similar has been the treatment given to the petitioners, and therefore, I see no reason, why they should steal a march over those who were also equally ineligible.

The emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner on the impugned rejection order, which holds the petitioners ineligible on the grounds that they do not have the equivalent degree, is of no significance. The reasons provided in the rejection cannot override the conditions prescribed in the advertisement.

Furthermore, even the reliance placed on Schedule-B of General Resolution No. Sewapra 2007/(10/07)/TE-6, dated 01.03.2008, by the State Government, declaring that the degree in Mechanical Engineering is equivalent to Production Engineering / Technology or Industrial Engineering, does not advance the case of the petitioners. The dispute herein is not whether Mechanical Engineering is equivalent to Production Engineering, but whether those holding equivalent degrees should also be entertained for participation in the selection process.

Since none of the candidates having the similar/equivalent degree was eligible, as already stated herein-above, I, therefore, find no grounds to interfere on the basis of the regulations ibid.

The instant petition is dismissed.

In parting, I may also hasten to add here that, for the sake of argument, even if the equivalent degree is to be taken as fulfillment of eligibility, in the absence of the petitioner having participated in the entire selection process, their merit cannot be ascertained. Though, of course, they were allowed in the screening process, no benefit was given to any candidate based solely on the screening process, and the actual merit was ascertained after the screening process.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.