IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 906 of 2006 (S/S) Saurabh Deep Singh S/o Sri S.P. Singh R/o 20, Jain Ki Bagiya, Near Jain Dharamkanta, Tulsi Nagar Opposite M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh). ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary, Madhyamik & School Education Department, Dehradun. 2. Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Aayog Bhawan, Gurukul Kangri Kankhal, Haridwar, through its Secretary 3. University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Through its Secretary 4. Association of Indian Universities AIU House, 16, Comrade Indrajeet Gupta Marg, (Kolta Marg), New Delhi. 5. M.J.P. Rohilkhand University Bareilly through its Registrar ...…………. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the 2 order dated 12th of June 2006, issued by respondent No. 2. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to treat the degree of M.Sc. Plant Science equivalent to degree of M.Sc. Botany for all purposes and consider the candidature of the petitioner and give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Biology against the advertisement No. 1 / Seva / 2003-04. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, advertised posts of Lecturers in Government Intermediate Colleges, including the post of Lecturer in Biology. The petitioner, in response to said advertisement, submitted his application for the post of Lecturer in Biology. However, he do not hold the degree either in M.Sc. Zoology and M.Sc. Botany. The petitioner is a postgraduate in Plant Science. The petitioner’s case is that the M.Sc. degree in Plant Science is equivalent to that of M.Sc. Botany. It is pleaded by the petitioner that he was provisionally allowed to appear in the interview on the condition that he shall produce a certificate from the University Grants Commission to the effect that the degree of M.Sc. Plant Science is equivalent to that of M.Sc. Botany. It is further pleaded 3 that the petitioner was not called for the interview on the ground that he does not possess the requisite minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer in Biology. The petitioner’s case is that he obtained a certificate from the Registrar and Head of the Department of Plant Science and submitted the same, but his candidature was rejected. Earlier he filed Writ Petition No. 257 (S/S) of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.03.2006, directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner. Vide impugned order dated 12th of June 2006, the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, has rejected the candidature of the petitioner finally stating that he is not qualified for the post of Lecturer in Biology. 4) A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, stating that the course of M.Sc. Plant Science is equivalent to M.Sc. Botany. However, in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it has been stated that for the post of Lecturer in Biology, one is required to hold Masters degree in Zoology or Botany. It is further stated that the qualifications for the post of Lecturers in the Intermediate Colleges are decided by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, and the Public Service Commission is bound by the qualifications fixed for any such post. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, in which it has been stated that the petitioner in his application for the screening 4 test held on 26.09.2004, gave a declaration claming himself to be qualified for the post. But, after the screening test was over when the petitioner was directed to submit the certificate of his educational qualification, he could not show any degree either that of M.Sc. Zoology or that of M.Sc. Botany. But, he had filed postgraduate degree in Plant Science. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that State Government vide its letter dated 28.12.2005, has clarified that the post of Lecturer in Biology, as per the U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer Grade) Service Rules, 1992, requires degree of M.Sc. Zoology or degree of M.Sc. Botany. The State Government further clarified that no other degree except M.Sc. Botany and M.Sc. Zoology is recognized for the post of Lecturer in Biology (copy of said Government clarification is Annexed as Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2). As such, the respondent Public Service Commission has rejected the candidature of the petitioner in view of the provision contained in U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer Grade) Service Rules, 1992. The petitioner is allowed only provisionally to appear in the interview on the condition that he shall produce a certificate from the University Grants Commission to show if the postgraduate degree in Plant Science was equivalent to postgraduate degree in Botany or that of Zoology. The petitioner failed to show any such certificate. As such, 5 the petitioner’s candidature was rightly rejected. It is 6 also stated that petitioner made wrong declaration in response to advertisement in his OMR application due to which he was allowed to appear in the written examination. In reply to Para 18 of the writ petition it has been stated that Professor of N.J.P. Rohilkhand University is not a competent authority to declare the equivalence of degrees. In reply to Para 19 of the writ petition it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the degree of Kaide Azam University, Islamabad, has also no concern in the matter of State Government in prescribing the qualification for a particular post, nor on the basis of their letter, a degree can be treated equivalent to that of another. 5) In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the petitioner was asked by the University to show the certificate from University Grants Commission relating to the equivalence of the degrees claimed by the petitioner, he moved an application (copy of which is Annexure –10 to the writ petition) on which on behalf of the University Grants Commission it was endorsed that the matter regarding equivalence of degrees is being dealt by A.I.U. Attention of this Court is also drawn on behalf of the petitioner to the copy of letter dated 20th of March 2006, issued by Association of Indian Universities, wherein it is mentioned that 7 since the professor and Head of Department of Plant Science of Rohilkhand University has clarified that the course and contents of the M.Sc. Plant Science are equivalent to the M.Sc. Botany, the clarification given by the Head of Department may be accepted. However, close scrutiny of this letter shows that Association of Indian Universities has not on its part declared whether M.Sc. Plant Science is really equivalent to the degree of M.Sc. Botany. It has not even discussed what subject are taught in M.Sc. Plant Science, which are common or different to the subjects taught in the M.Sc. Botany. The letter dated 20.02.2006 written by Professor V.P.Singh of M.J.P. Rohilkhand University (copy of which is Annexure – 7 to the writ petition) shows that the said person has recommended the Public Service Commission to take an expert opinion in the matter. This letter in the opinion of this Court is of no help to the petitioner for the reason that the Professor has clearly concealed the fact whether said University is granting degrees both in M.Sc. Plant Science and M.Sc. Botany, or not? 7) Apart from the above facts what is relevant is that the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, is bound by the qualifications mentioned in the U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer Grade) Service Rules, 1992 (applicable to the State of Uttarakhand) which prescribes qualification for the post of Lecturer in Biology in Intermediate Colleges. It is specifically 8 mentioned in said Rules that for the post of a Lecturer in Biology, a postgraduate degree in Zoology or Botany from recognized University established by Government of India, is the prescribed qualification. As such, the respondents have committed no error of law in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Biology. Unless, the aforesaid Rule is amended by the State Government, it cannot be said that the respondents were bound to accept the candidature of the petitioner who had held neither the degree of M.Sc. Zoology, nor that of M.Sc. Botany. The Rule nowhere provides that any equivalent degree will be acceptable as a qualification for the post of Lecturer in Biology. 8) It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has neither challenged the rule nor had he challenged the advertisement in which it was specifically mentioned that the candidate must possess Masters degree in Zoology or in Botany. 9) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition has no force, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. (Misc. Application No. 3025 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 18, 2009. H. Negi 9