Shesh Narayn Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Agrawal, J

Heard on admission.

Since all the petitions involved a similar question, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

By way of these petitions, the Writ Petitioners are praying for review of the judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in bunch of writ appeals seeking issuance of a direction to Respondent / State authorities to follow the procedure for their appointment to the post of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Information Technology, Department of Information Technology in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.07.2015.

From perusal of the record, it appears that the Writ Petitioners had filed petitions seeking directions to the Respondent/State authorities to consider their cases for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors and Lecturers in different disciplines in Government Engineering Colleges as well as Government Polytechnic Colleges. According to the Writ Petitioners, an advertisement No.03/2015, dated 09.07.2015, published on 15.07.2015, was issued by the Public Service Commission (in short PSC) for recruitment of Assistant Professors in Engineering Colleges and the Lecturers in Polytechnic Colleges, for which, the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Professors (Engineering Colleges) was B.E. / B.Tech. and M.E / M.Tech. in relevant branch with first class or equivalent either in B.E. / B.Tech. and, for the post of Lecturers (Polytechnic Colleges), the essential qualification was Bachelors degree in Engineering / Technology in the relevant branch with first class or equivalent with further stipulation that if one candidate has the degree in Engineering / Technology with the first class or equivalent is required either at Bachelors' Level or at Masters' Level.

The Writ Petitioners were admittedly not possessed of the qualifications in the same name / discipline, as mentioned in the said advertisement, published on 15.07.2015. The Writ Petitioners, who had duly applied for the said post were called for interview, but were declared ineligible by the PSC as they did not possess the required degrees as mentioned in the said advertisement. It was pleaded by the Writ Petitioners, while referring to the notification dated 02.07.2017, that the degree possessed by them have been declared relevant for the subject for which the degree was made essential in the said notification, therefore, they are duly eligible for the said posts.

On the other hand, it was the plea of the Respondent/State authorities that the recruitment process has to be carried out strictly in conformity with the said advertisement. It was pleaded further that one Reshamlal Pradhan had filed the petition being WPS No.3169 of 2015 arising out of the same advertisement dealing with the same issue and the same was dismissed by this Court, therefore, the petitions as framed are liable to be dismissed.

The learned Single Judge, after considering the Rules known as the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Engineering College) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 and, similarly the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, observed that the candidate applying for a particular post in a particular discipline must have under-graduate or post-graduate in the relevant subject and accordingly, while considering the expression “relevant subject” held at paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 as under :-

“10. The expression “relevant subject” for appointment on a post with reference to the qualification has been considered by the Supreme Court in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput (supra), holding that post-graduate degree in “relevant subject” in the context would mean post-graduate degree in which the candidate has applied for recruitment to teach a particular subject. ............

In a subsequent decision rendered in Prakash Chand Meena (supra), the Supreme Court has held that in the matter of eligibility qualification, equivalent qualification must be recognized as such in existing recruitment rules or government order existing on or before the initiation of recruitment process.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

I have given anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the above score, however, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Meena (supra) is that the qualification must be recognized as such in existing recruitment rules or government order existing on or before initiation of recruitment process and for a further reason that a similar plea which has been raised by one of the candidate who had appeared in the same recruitment process namely; Reshamlal Pradhan has been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 3169 of 2015 decided on 08.12.2015, against which, writ appeal bearing WA No.37 of 2016 has been preferred, but dismissed as withdrawn before the Division Bench of this Court on 28.01.2016. Thus, even if the said decision was rendered before issuance of the relevant notification dated 02.02.2017, the observation made by the Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Meena (supra) would still bar the petitioners to raise a contrary argument to validate their candidature on the basis of a relevance notification which was not existing on the date of initiation of recruitment process.”

The aforesaid observation has been affirmed further by the Division Bench vide its judgment impugned in bunch of writ appeals sought to be reviewed herein by way of these petitions.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners, the PSC at the time of verification of documents, i.e., on 27.08.2016 debarred them from participating in the interview on the ground that they are not holding the M.Tech. degree in Information Technology, and therefore, they are not eligible. It is, however, submitted herein that they (Petitioners) came to know in the year 2018 while furnishing the memo dated 07.11.2016 that a meeting of the “Committee of Experts” was convened on 14.08.2015, who had never rejected the degrees of the Writ Petitioners from eligibility criteria on the ground of relevancy as mentioned in the said advertisement. It is contended further by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that, if the said opinion of the meeting would have been disclosed before this Court, different conclusions would have arisen.  Therefore, the judgment impugned required to be recalled.

Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Respondents/State  has opposed the aforesaid contention of the Writ Petitioners.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record, particularly, the opinion of the expoert Committee carefully.

At this juncture, it is necessary to examine the opinion of the said Committee, contained in the said Memo dated 07.11.2016, wherein it has been observed as under :-

“The members after due deliberations came to conclusion that as per the advertisement dated 15/7/2015 UG and PG degree in Engineering / Tehnological stream only as such M.SC. in basic Science should not be considered equivalent to B.E./B.Tech (Electronics) unless the M.SC. Degree of the applicant is declared equivalent to B.Tech / B.E. (Electronics) by AIU.

Refer :- Clarifications issued by AICTE dated 10/9/2003.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx In the opinion of the Committee :-

(1) Post Graduate Degree (M.E./M.tech) with specialization in information Technology are relevant for the post of Assistant Professor in Information Technology and/or Computer Sc & Engg. Branch. This will be the same for the posts of Lecturer in IT and /or CSE branches & Polytechnics.

(2) No precedence could be found for taking M.C.A. equivalent to B.E./B.Tech (CSE) as such M.C.A. should not be taken as equivalent to UG (Computer sc & Engg.). Also, BCA and B.SC (computer science) should not be taken equivalent to B.E.? Btech (CSE)

For both of the above recommendations the reference is letter No. F. No. R10/ALL/2010-11) 2010 DATED 21/6/2010.

These recommendation are made pertaining to the application received which are listed herewith.”

Although the aforesaid opinion was given by the Committee, but it was only recommendatory in nature and we do not find any document placed on record that it has been approved and / or acted upon. In absence of its approval, no reliance could be placed upon it, as prayed for by the Writ Petitioners seeking review of the judgment impugned as passed in the bunch of writ appeals. Consequently, we do not find any ground so as to call for any interference in the judgment impugned.

The Review Petitions, being devoid of merit, are thus dismissed.

A copy of this order shall be placed in all the connected petitions. No order as to costs.