CWP No. 12682 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12682 of 2012 Date of decision: .07.2013 Roop Chand Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kiran Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
This order shall dispose of CWP No. 12682 of 2012 titled as Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana & others, CWP No. 11889 of 2012 titled as Shashi Prakash Vs. State of Haryana & others, CWP No. 12438 of 2012 titled as Inderjit Vs. State of Haryana and CWP No. 18963 of 2012 titled as Ramesh Vs. State of Haryana & others as identical issue is involved in these petitions. Facts, however, are being noticed from CWP No. 12682 of 2012.
The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, whereby the claim of the petitioner for selection and appointment as Conductor under the Haryana State Transport Department has been rejected.
It has been pleaded that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued advertisement No.3/2009 advertising 3837 posts of Conductors. The qualification prescribed was Matric with Conductor Driving License. The petitioner was stated to be duly eligible as he had qualified the secondary level examination from the National Open School, New Delhi and also possessed the Conductor License. The petitioner had appeared in the written examination and had thereafter been called for the interview. The result of the selection process was declared on 01.02.2012 but the petitioner was not shown as duly selected. The petitioner, who otherwise belongs to the Scheduled Castes category submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 stating that 99 posts of Scheduled Castes category had remained vacant on account of non-availability of candidates and accordingly, he may be informed as regards the basis of not being selected inspite of being eligible. In response thereto, the petitioner was supplied information dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure P-6) that his candidature has been rejected. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that even though, the basis of rejection of his candidature had not been disclosed but still he had been orally informed that he was not considered eligible as the secondary level examination qualified from National Open School, New Delhi was not considered equivalent to the prescribed essential qualification of Matric. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 8243 of 2012, which was disposed of on 04.05.2012 (Annexure P-9) with a direction to the respondent-Commission to take a final decision on the representation that already stood filed. In purported compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the impugned order dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-11) has been passed, holding the petitioner to be not fulfilling the condition of possessing the essential advertised qualification for the post of Conductor and accordingly, rejecting his claim.
Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner had applied for the post of Conductor and had been permitted to participate in the process of selection comprising of written examination as also interview. It is contended that 99 posts of Scheduled Castes category had remained vacant and the petitioner inspite of being eligible and belonging to the Scheduled Castes category has been arbitrarily denied consideration and appointment to the post of Conductor. Counsel has further vehemently argued that the basis of rejection of the claim of the petitioner holding his senior secondary qualification from National Open School, New Delhi to be not recognized is totally perverse. In this regard, counsel would refer to information dated 29.02.2012 supplied by the Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani at Annexure P-7, whereby the petitioner had been informed that the secondary examination from National Open School, New Delhi is recognized by the Board with the condition that the candidate has passed the examination with atleast five papers. That apart, counsel would refer to memo dated 02.11.1999 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department, whereby a blanket decision had been taken that the degrees/diplomas/certificates recognized by various universities in the State of Haryana as also the Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani shall be recognized in the State of Haryana for purposes of admission as also recruitment. Still further, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 04.03.2008 passed in CWP No. 17444 of 2001 titled as Om Parkash & another Vs. State of Haryana & another, wherein it had been observed that Matric from National Open School, Delhi would be considered equivalent to Matric qualification in Haryana.
Learned State counsel would justify the passing of the impugned order in terms of referring to a clarification dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) issued by the Director Secondary Education Haryana, wherein the Haryana Staff Selection Commission had been informed that the secondary level examination passed from National Open School, New Delhi is equivalent to Matric level examination of the Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani subject to the condition that the candidate must have passed Hindi and English as compulsory subjects and passed three subjects out of Mathematics, Social Studies, Science and one elective subject in the secondary level examination. It has been submitted that even though the petitioner had passed Hindi and English as compulsory subject and has passed Home Science, Science and Social Science as additional subjects but he has not passed one more elective subject and accordingly, has passed five subjects instead of six subjects from the National Open School, New Delhi and accordingly, the petitioner cannot be considered to be possessing equivalent qualification to the prescribed essential advertised qualifications for the post of Conductor.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
The clarification issued by the Director, Secondary Education Haryana dated 25.01.2012 regarding secondary school examination from the National Open School, New Delhi is in the following terms:
"SUBJECT:CLARIFICATION REGARDING SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE OPEN SCHOOL.
Reference your letter No.1/23/2012-4S/237 dated 20.01.2012 on the subject cited above.
It is intimated that the Secondary Level Examination passed from National Open School, New Delhi is equivalent to Matric Level Examination of the Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani subject to the condition that candidate must have passed Hindi & English as compulsory subjects and has passed three subjects out of Mathematics, Social Studies, Science and one elective subject in Secondary Level Examination."
It is against such clarification that the Competent Authority has taken a view by passing the order dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-11) holding the petitioner 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. There is no assertion in the writ petition as regards malafide consideration having come into play while issuance of the impugned order. 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 qualifications from the National Open School, New Delhi have been considered eligible and appointed to the post of Conductor. 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. Such issue stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Shugat Ali Vs. Union of India, 1975 Volume 3 SCC 76 and it had been categorically laid down that the subject of equivalence of educational qualification is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standard. The Court being not an expert and armed with relevant data and un-aided by technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence would not proceed to undertake such a task. In the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai & others 2008 (2) SCT 49, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question as regards qualification for being appointed as Assistant Master in Junior Basic Schools in UP had sounded the caution to the Courts from refraining to enter into questions of equivalence of qualifications and that 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 to the matter. It is well settled that it is for the employer to prescribe the essential qualification for appointment to a particular post. Whenever, specific qualifications are prescribed for the 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 Commission as the case may be to consider and appoint the incumbents possessing such qualifications. In the advertisement in question, the prescribed essential qualification indicated Matric. There was no indication as regards considering candidates possessing equivalent qualifications. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to treat the qualification of secondary level examination qualified from the National Open School, New Delhi to be equivalent to be Matric in Haryana. In taking such a view, I would draw support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (1) SCT 888, 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 teat 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 judgment in Om Parkash's case (supra) is wholly misplaced as in that case the observation as regards equivalence of qualification of Secondary Level Examination from National Open School to Matric in Haryana was against the backdrop of a Circular dated 13.05.2004. In the facts of the present case, the impugned order has been passed and a view has been taken in the light of a clarification issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) For the reasons recorded above, there would be no basis that would warrant interference in the impugned order dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-11) The civil writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
July 11, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE Note: Whether to be reported? Yes.