Sushil Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition questioning the validity of the decision of the Commissioner and Director General School Education, Haryana, holding him to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Science Master vide impugned order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-19). Pleaded case of the petitioner is that he possesses the qualifications of Matriculation, 10+2 and a three year B.Sc. Degree with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. Petitioner also possesses the qualification of B.Ed. of one year duration through Correspondence/Distance Education mode from Jiwaji University, Gwalior.

The Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula issued advertisement No. 6/2006 on 20.07.2006 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including 1056 posts of Science Master. Essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Science Master as per the advertisement were as follows:--

"E.Q = B.Sc. with B.Ed. from a recognized University with any of the subject in B.Sc.:

Physics, 2. Chemistry, 3. Botony, 4. Zoology

OR

(ii) B.Sc. Education (4 Year course) from a recognized University with any of the two subjects out of the following:--

Physics, 2. Chemistry, 3. Botony, 4. Zoology

(iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard."

Petitioner is stated to have applied for the post of Science Master within the stipulated timeframe. Having been subjected to a process of selection, name of the petitioner was placed at Merit No. 25 in the Merit List pertaining to General Category in the recommendations made by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission and forwarded to the Education Department, State of Haryana for appointment to the post of Science Master. Appointment to the post has, however, been denied to the petitioner in the light of impugned order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-19) on the basis that the B.Ed. Degree possessed by the petitioner from Jiwaji University, Gwalior does not fulfill the eligibility condition in terms of the essential qualifications prescribed.

Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapur, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has, vehemently, argued that Jiwaji University, Gwalior had prescribed the same curriculum for the B.Ed. Course through Distance Education mode as was prescribed by NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education) and the Course as such was based on the guidelines formulated by the NCTE. It is, accordingly, asserted that the decision of respondent No. 2 in not treating the B.Ed. Degree possessed by the petitioner to be a valid qualification for appointment to the post of Science Master is without any justifiable basis. Learned Senior counsel has further referred to a number of documents placed on record to contend that the qualification of B.Ed. that the petitioner possesses through Correspondence/Distance Education mode would have to be treated as equivalent to a regular B.Ed. Degree granted by any recognized University. In this regard, a reference has been made to communication dated 13.01.2009 (Annexure P-12) issued by the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner has been informed that the B.Ed. Degree obtained by him from Jiwaji University is a recognized Bachelor Degree in the field of Education. Reference is also made to letter dated 27.11.2013 issued by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra at Annexure P-31 in terms of which Jiwaji University, Gwalior has been informed that the B.Ed. (2-year Degree Course) through correspondence has been recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree awarded by Kurukshetra University through correspondence. By placing reliance upon such letter dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P-31), learned Senior counsel would argue that the very basis of holding the petitioner ineligible as per impugned order dated 22.10.2009 would be non existent. It has further been submitted that even Punjab University, Chandigarh has issued a consolidated list of various degrees, diplomas and certificates and in such list Punjab University has included B.Ed. from Jiwaji University, Gwalior to be equivalent to B.Ed. of Punjab University. In a nutshell, case put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the one year duration B.Ed. qualification possessed by the petitioner through Distance Education mode would have to be construed as a recognized and equivalent qualification to that of a ''B.Ed. Degree from a Recognized University'' as per stipulation contained in the advertisement dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure P-6) in response to which the petitioner had applied for the post of Science Master. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 212 of 2004 titled as Sandeep and others v. State of Haryana and others and other connected petitions decided on 23.04.2004 and placed on record at Annexure P-23.

Per contra, the State Government has filed a reply taking a stand that clarification as regards the B.Ed. qualification possessed by the petitioner had been sought from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and in response thereto Communication dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure R-1 appended along with the reply) was issued by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, whereby the Department of Education, State of Haryana was informed that the B.Ed. (Correspondence) qualification of Jiwaji University, Gwalior has not been recognized for the purpose of higher studies at the University. Learned State counsel would submit that based upon such clarification, the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-19) had been issued holding the petitioner to be not eligible for appointment to the post of Science Master. State counsel would contend that the letter dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P-31) issued by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra cannot have retrospective operation so as to validate and accord recognition to the B.Ed. qualification of the petitioner which was acquired in the year 1995-96. Furthermore, in para 4 of the reply, filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a categoric stand has been taken that not even a single candidate, who has passed B.Ed. Degree from other States and which was not treated equivalent with Degrees issued from Universities of Haryana, has been given appointment by the Department.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the pleadings on record have been perused.

The basis of holding the petitioner to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Science Master is discernible from the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-19) itself and is worded as follows :

"Clarification regarding equivalence of the B.Ed. degree (correspondence course) from Jiwaji University, Gwalior was sought from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra vide letter dated 18.02.2009. Further, a reminder dated 22.8.2009 was sent to Kurukshetra University. Now required information has been received from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra vide letter dated 21.10.2009. It has been informed that B.Ed. (Correspondence) of Jiwaji University, Gwalior has not been recognized for the purpose of higher studies at that University.

As per the instruction dated 2.11.1999 of the Education Department, the degrees/diplomas/certificates/examinations recognized by Universities of Haryana would stand recognized in the State of Haryana for admission and recruitment purposes and that while imparting recognition/equivalence to any examination in the State of Haryana for the purpose of admissions/recruitment, the opinion of the State Universities, School Education Board or the Technical Education Board, as the case may be, would be sought.

Hence, in light of the information received from Kurukshetra University, Sh. Sushil Kumar is not eligible for appointment to the post of Science Master.

In view of the above mentioned facts, the claim of the petitioner is hereby rejected."

It is in the light of clarification received from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra vide letter dated 21.10.2009 that the petitioner has been held to be not holding a recognized qualification i.e., B.Ed. (Correspondence) from Jiwaji University, Gwalior and, accordingly, held to be not possessing the prescribed essential advertised qualification for the post. The reasoning furnished in the impugned order cannot be construed to be extraneous or irrational. It is not even the case set up on behalf of the petitioner that he has been discriminated against inasmuch as other candidates possessing similar qualification i.e. B.Ed. one year degree course through Distance Education, have been considered eligible and appointed to the post of Science Master. Rather, there is no rebuttal at the hands of the petitioner to the specific stand taken on behalf of the State in the reply that not even a single candidate, who possessed B.Ed. Degree and which was not treated as equivalent with degree awarded from Universities of Haryana having been appointed.

Even on a broader principle, the petitioner cannot succeed. It is not for this Court to undertake an exercise of equating one qualification with the other. The Court being not an expert and lacking in the requisite technical insights would not proceed to undertake a task of determining equivalence of qualification. In the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court was considering the question as regards qualification for being appointed as Assistant Master in Junior Basic Schools in U.P. and had sounded caution to the Courts from refraining to enter into questions of equivalence of qualifications as also with the discretion exercised by the experts in the field. It had been observed in the following terms :

"Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administration decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence, it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it."

There is yet another aspect of the matter. Even if this Court was to proceed with the assumption that the qualification possessed by the petitioner i.e. B.Ed. one year Degree Course through Distance Education mode from Jiwaji University, Gwalior is equivalent to the prescribed essential qualification for the post of Science Master, still directions cannot be issued to compel the respondent-Department to appoint the petitioner to the post in question i.e. Science Master. In this regard, suffice it to observe that it is right of the employer to prescribe the essential qualification for appointment to a particular post. Whenever, specific qualifications are prescribed for a post, the incumbent for such a post would not be vested with an inherent right to seek the benefit of equivalent qualification in the absence of a clear stipulation inserted in the advertisement indicating the power with the State or the Recruitment Agency as the case may be to consider and appoint the incumbents possessing such qualifications. In the facts of the present case, it has gone uncontroverted that the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement dated 20.07.2006 were pari materia with the qualifications laid down for the post of Science Master under the Statutory Rules governing the post i.e., the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998. In the Statutory Rules as also in the advertisement, there was no indication as regards considering candidates possessing equivalent qualifications. As such petitioner cannot compel the respondents to treat the qualification of B.Ed. (Correspondence/Distance Education from Jiwaji University, Gwalior) as equivalent to the qualification of ''B.Ed. from a Recognized University'' and to appoint him to the post of Science Master. In taking such view, this Court would draw support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajay Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2004 (1) SCT 888 : (2004 Lab IC 2205 (P & H)) and the relevant portion of which reads in the following terms:--

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the qualifications/degree in Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, is being treated equivalent to the Post Graduate Diploma of the Kurukshetra University. In this regard, he relied upon a letter issued by the Assistant Registrar of Maharshi Dayanad University dated 4.8.2003. This letter is of no help to the petitioner. It is for the employer to prescribe essential qualifications for appointment to a particular post. The Government in its wisdom provided the essential qualifications specifically excluding the expression "or any other course equivalent to the prescribed qualifications." Absence of this clause clearly indicates that the State and the Commission did not desire to appoint people possessing equivalent qualifications. A clause of equivalence as treated for academic purpose may not essentially be true or universally applicable for employment purposes as well. In the field of employment a specific stipulation should be provided in the rules/instructions and/or the equivalent to the specified qualifications. Nothing has been brought to our notice which vests the respondents with such power in relation to the present advertisement. On the other hand, by very absence of such clause, exclusion of such power is clear. We are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to treat his degree of Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak as a Post Graduate Diploma for the purposed of satisfying the prescribed essential qualifications."

Reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner upon the Division Bench Judgment in Sandeep and others (supra) is wholly misplaced as in that case for the post of Art and Craft Teachers advertised by the Haryana Staff Selection Commissioner, the relevant condition laying down the essential qualification i.e. two years'' diploma in Art and Craft Course run by Haryana Industrial Training Department also contained a specific stipulation as regards treating equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana School Education Board to be also valid. It was against such backdrop of a specific stipulation of even considering candidates possessing equivalent qualification to the essential qualification prescribed, that the Division Bench had granted relief to the petitioners in the case of Sandeep and others (supra). The judgment as such is clearly distinguishable on facts.

For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-19) holding the petitioner to be ineligible for the post of Science Master. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.