Sudha vs State of Haryana and Others

Ranjit Singh J.—The petitioner has fifed petition seeking issuance of writ of quo warranto for quashing appointment of respondents No. 6 to 9, who have been appointed on the post of JBT teacher. Prayer of the petitioner is that the appointment made pursuant to 02.03.2008 and 12.05.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and against the statutory rules and also in violation of the said requisition of law.

Noticing the fact in brief, it is seen that respondent No. 5 had invited applications for the post of JBT teacher on 02.03.2008/12.05.2008. The qualifications as mentioned in both the advertisement for the JBT post were as under:-

(i) B.A./B.Sc. with English as one of the optional/elective subject.

(ii) Passed two year Junior Basic Training Course or Diploma in Education from Haryana Education Department or its equivalent recognized by the Haryana Government with special Training in Child Psychology and Behavior of Child upto the age of twelve years.

(iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Metric standard. Candidates having higher qualification may also apply.

The petitioner was possessing qualification relevant for the post of JBT teacher. The petitioner is also M.A. in Economics and having a diploma in Education granted by the Secondary Education Department, Haryana. The petitioner, accordingly, appeared before the Selection Committee. However, she was not selected. The husband of the petitioner applied for information under the RTI Act in regard to the selected candidates. From this, he learnt that selected candidates were having qualification of M.A. B.Ed. The petitioner would make reference to the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of JBT teacher as given in Appendix A and would urge that the appointment of respondents No. 7 to 12 was against the statutory rules issued by the Government of Haryana. The grievance is that the statutory rules do not make any provision for appointment of B.Ed, being a requisite qualification. Submission also is that the B.Ed, is not the higher qualification for the qualification prescribed for the post of JBT teacher.

State as well as the private respondents have filed reply. In the reply filed by the State, reference is made to the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of JBT. Pointed reference is made to the clause/advertisement whereby the candidates having higher qualification were held eligible to apply. It is then stated that the Selection Committee had selected the candidates after the interview and then their appointment has been approved by the Director.

In the reply filed on behalf of private respondents No. 4 and 5, it is stated that the petitioner was not even eligible when respondents No. 6 to 8 were appointed. It is otherwise mentioned that 5 posts of JBT teachers were advertised on 02.03.2008 and last date of submission was 12.03.2008. When the petitioner applied, the result of the Diploma in Education 2nd year was still awaited, which was not declared even up to the last date of submission of the application. As far as the subsequent advertisement is concerned, it is stated that the selection Committee has formed a merit position of the selected candidates and the petitioner as per merit is listed at No. 5. Even if some relief ultimately is to be granted, the candidates higher in merit than the petitioner would have a right to be "appointed. Accordingly, it is stated that no cause is made out by the petitioner for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On merit also, it is submitted that the qualifications prescribed for the post of JBT teacher are BA. & B.Sc. and two years Junior Basic Training Course or Diploma in Education from Haryana Education Department apart from other qualifications of special training in Child Psychology and Behavior of Child and knowledge of Hindi. Reference is then made to Rule 82(2) of the Haryana School Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"), whereby the Managing Committee is competent to make an appointment of a person having higher qualification than the prescribed for the post. However, as per the Rule, Department shall pay only salary grant for the scale of the post as specified. Additional payment, if any, on account of higher qualification shall be borne by the Managing Committee of the school. Accordingly, it is prayed that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner would first draw my attention to ratio of law laid down by Full Bench in the case of Som Dutt v. State of Haryana and Another, 1983 (3) S.L.R. 141. The submission is that higher qualification has been held to be ineligible for appointment. I have perused the ratio of law, which would emerge from this decision. Though the Full Bench has only held that employer State would be in law entitled to prescribe the qualification which would necessary as tailored to the peculiar needs of the particular posts or service. It is also observed that employer alone would know what are the specialties and conditions of service or post for which the incumbent is required. It is, thus, held that the discretion in seeking right man for the right job would be left to relatively unfettered. The observation also is that no doctrinaire rule can be laid down that a technically higher educational qualification is necessarily better or more advantageous for the peculiar needs of a post for which the employer-State has acquired under qualification.

The reading of the judgment does not give an indication of the law that higher qualification is held to be ineligible for appointment. Higher qualification may not be a preferential condition for appointment as such but to say that person possessing higher qualification would be ineligible to seek a writ of quo warranto certainly is not made out. For this proposition, I can seek support from the latest Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2011-1) 161 P.L.R. 656 (F.B.). As held in this case, a candidate having higher qualification may not be entitled to any additional weigh age but can not be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification. It is also observed that denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would result in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Full Bench has also observed that it goes without saying that the higher qualification provides better knowledge, better sense and in sight to equip the person with better understanding of the issues and problems. The Bench has also placed reliance on the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Others, , where the Court had an occasion to consider whether the higher qualification than 8th standard prescribed for the post of peon would render a candidate ineligible. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examinati6n could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.

Accordingly, it is viewed that candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line can not be excluded from consideration for selection.

Even otherwise, Rule 82 of the Rules, as relied in the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5, would clearly show that a person with higher qualification can be appointed on a post and the condition only would be that the grant-in-aid would be for the post for which the appointment is made and the reimbursement for the same if any would be made by the management. This being the position, it certainly cannot be said that a person possessing a higher qualification would be ineligible for appointment on the ground that he is possessing higher qualification.

To be fair to the counsel for the petitioner, he has made reference to the case of P.M. Hatha and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, 2003 (2) S.C.T. 281 to urge that B.Ed. diploma/degree is neither prescribed qualification nor is equivalent or higher qualification. It is observed that holders of B.Ed, qualification cannot be considered for post of primary teacher who are required to teach small children. As observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Som Dutt''s case (supra), it is the employer who is to know the requirement for a particular job. If the employer thinks that the qualification possessed by the respondents was appropriate for their appointment or was higher to the diploma which was prescribed for the post then no interference may be called for to say that the qualification possessed by the respondents was not the higher qualification. As observed in Som Dutt ''s case (supra), such matter has to be left to the discretion of the employer to seek right man for the right job and this discretion or decision has to be left unfettered.

Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially, when the prayer is for issuance of quo warranto. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate that the qualification possessed by the respondents was such that they were ineligible for the appointment to the post on which they were appointed.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.