Vikram Kumar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.—The petitioner has laid this writ petition for seeking a direction of this Court to treat the qualification of B.A. with Computer Application as one of the optional subjects at par with the qualifications prescribed by the respondents in the advertisement Annex.5 for direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. That apart, the petitioner has also sought ancillary reliefs in the petition. For seeking the aforementioned reliefs, the petitioner has, inter-alia, averred in the writ petition that he was appointed in MNREGA project as Computer Operator with machine in Gram Panchayat 6 ZWM, Panchayat Samiti Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar and he is serving in the said capacity for last couple of years on contract basis. On issuance of advertisement for direct recruitment to the post of LDC vide Annex.5, being eligible for the job, he had applied by sending his application online. In the application, the petitioner has narrated his educational qualifications and has also mentioned the qualification acquired by him. Thereafter, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar issued provisional cut-off list and in the said list cut-off marks for OBC is shown as 66.723. As per the version of the petitioner, his marks are 73.617 and as such he stands in merit and deserves selection. According to the petitioner, despite these admitted facts, his candidature was not considered and other lessor meritorious incumbents were included in the select list. The petitioner has asserted with full emphasis that he is possessing requisite qualification prescribed in the advertisement and is also having three years experience to his credit for earning bonus marks prescribed in the advertisement.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondents have acted arbitrarily in rejecting his candidature inasmuch as the mark sheets of B.A. Examinations clearly indicate that petitioner was having Computer Application as one of the subjects in his B.A. Degree Course and is having requisite qualification pertaining to computer education as prescribed in clause 5 of the advertisement. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the qualifications, which the petitioner is possessing are liable to be treated at par with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for granting reliefs to the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the petitioner is lacking the basic qualifications for the job prescribed in the advertisement Annex.5. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the qualification acquired by the petitioner i.e. B.A. degree with Computer Application subject has no nexus whatsoever with the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. With these submissions, the learned counsel has urged that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this qualification be treated at par with the prescribed qualification is wholly misplaced.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is eligible to compete for selection to the post of LDC is per-se bereft of merit. The eligibility conditions for direct recruitment to the post of LDC is prescribed in clause 5 of the Advertisement Annex.5 with clarity and precision, which is reproduced as under:

If the qualifications of the petitioner are examined on the touchstone of the aforementioned clause 5, then it will ipso facto reveal that he falls short of the requisite qualification insisted for the post.

It is a trite law that Court cannot regulate prescription of qualifications and it is essentially for the rule making body and the employer to lay down such qualifications. In my considered view, prescribing qualification is the sole prerogative of the rule making authority and the employer and a prospective candidate is having no right to suggest as to what ought or ought not to be the qualification for a particular job. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the qualifications which the petitioner is possessing be treated equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, is misplaced. My this view is fortified by a decision of Apex Court in case of V.K. Sood Vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation and others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that prescription of qualifications for appointment to any post is not the function of the Court and it is essentially for the rulemaking authority or employer to regulate the method of recruitment and to prescribe qualifications. The Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:--

Thus it would be clear that, in the exercise of the rule making power, the President or authorized person is entitled to prescribe method of recruitment, qualifications both educational as well as technical for appointment or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. The rules thus having been made in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that the authorities have prescribed tailor made qualifications to suit the stated individuals whose names have been mentioned in the appeal. Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. The rules prescribed qualifications for eligibility and the suitability of the appellant would be tested by the Union Public Service Commission.

In view of above, no case is made out for interference, and the petition merits dismissal. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.