Yamlay Khan vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—The petitioners, who are having qualifications of Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Development and Social Works, working on the post of Manager SGSY in Swarn Jayanti Gram Rojgar Yojna and MGNREGA, have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 06.03.2013, whereby the State Government has introduced an amendment in the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter after referred to as ''the Rules of 1998'') prescribing qualifications for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Programme Officer.

As per the Rules of 1998, for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Programme Officer, a person is required to hold a degree or diploma in Business Administration and other equivalent degrees and diplomas.

The submission of the petitioners is that the action of the State Government of not including the qualification of degree or diploma in rural development and social work for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Programme Officer is bad as the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 1998 for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Programme Officer is discriminatory. The contention of the petitioners is to the effect that the degree or diploma in rural development and social work is equivalent to the degree or diploma in the Business Administration and, therefore, the qualification possessed by them i.e. degree or diploma in the rural development and social work be treated as equivalent to the degree and diploma in the Business Administration. It is also contended that while working as Manager SGSY and Assistant Programme Officer in the scheme of the State Government, the petitioners are discharging similar kind of duties as assigned to the Assistant Programme Officer and, therefore, they should be treated as eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Programme Officer.

Having considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and having gone through the material available on record, we are clearly of the view that the writ petitions challenging the validity of the Notification dated 06.03.2013 prescribing qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Programme Officer, is without any merit.

It is settled proposition of law that a law made by the legislature can be struck down by the Courts only on two grounds namely (i) that the Legislature, who has enacted the law, does not have competence to enact such law and (ii) that it does not take away or abridge any of the fundamental rights as guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India or any other constitutional provisions.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Rakesh Kohli and Another, has held as under.

"16. The statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly. The court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that the violation of the constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provision under challenge cannot stand. Sans flagrant violation of the constitutional provisions, the law made by Parliament or a State Legislature is not declared bad."

This Court has repeatedly stated that legislative enactment can be struck down by Court only on two grounds, namely (i) that the appropriate Legislature does not have competence to make the law, and (ii) that it does not take away or abridge any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part - III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others, etc. Vs. McDowell and Co. and others, etc., while dealing with the challenge to an enactment based on Article 14, this Court stated in paragraph 43 of the Report as follows:

"43....A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz. (1) lack of legislative competence, and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third ground...... if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom."

17.... to 25.....

In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, the Constitution Bench further observed that there was always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. It stated in paragraph 15 of the Report as under:

"15....The courts, it is accepted, must presume that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It must be borne in mind that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest and finally that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation."

The above legal position has been reiterated by a Constitution Bench of this Court Moti Das Vs. S.P. Sahi, The Special Officer In Charge of Hindu Religious Trusts and Others,

In Hamdard Dawakhana and Another, Kalipada Deb and Another, Lakshman Shripati Itpure @ Lakshman Shripati Impore and A.B. Choudhri and Another Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, inter alia, while referring to the earlier two decisions, namely, Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. and Mahant Moti Das, it was observed in para 8 of the Report as follows:

"8. Therefore, when the constitutionality of an enactment is challenged on the ground of violation of any of the articles in Part III of the Constitution, the ascertainment of its true nature and character becomes necessary i.e. its subject-matter, the area in which it is intended to operate, its purport and intent have to be determined. In order to do so it is legitimate to take into consideration all the factors such as history of the legislation, the purpose thereof, the surrounding circumstances and conditions, the mischief which it intended to suppress, the remedy for the disease which the legislature resolved to cure and the true reason for the remedy..."

In Hamdard Dawakhana, the Court also followed the statement of law in Mahant Moti Das and the two earlier decisions, namely, Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India and State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara and reiterated the principle that presumption was always in favour of constitutionality of an enactment."

In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have not questioned the competence of the State Government in prescribing qualificational eligibility for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Programme Officer under the Rules of 1998.

The petitioners have also utterly failed to demonstrate that the qualification prescribed by the State Government for appointment to the post of Assistant Programme Officer under the Rules of 1998 is in contravention of Part-III of the Constitution of India or any other constitutional provision.

Prescribing any qualification for a particular post is a matter within the domain and jurisdiction of the employer concerned and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The rule making authority looking to the job requirements prescribed qualificational eligibility pertaining to the post concerned. The petitioners have utterly failed to prove as to how the qualification prescribed by the State Government for requirement on the post Assistant Programme Officer under the Rules of 1998 is irrelevant. The petitioners have also failed to demonstrate that the qualification possessed by them is having any nexus, relevance or rational with the post for which they have not been treated eligible. Simply because the qualification possessed by the petitioners does not figure in the eligibility criterion, the petitioners cannot be allowed to question the same until they satisfy the Court that the rule making authority lacks competence to prescribe eligibility qualification or there is violation of any of the fundamental rights as governed under Part-III of the Constitution of India or any of the constitutional provisions.

Looking from every angle, we are not persuaded to strike down the validity of the provisions of rule prescribing qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Programme Officer under the Rules of 1998, at the instance of the petitioners.

Hence, there is no force in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. Stay petitions also stand dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.