IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15619 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 09.10.2009 Parvinder Kumar ... PETITIONER Versus Industrial Development Bank of India Limited and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.9.2009 (Annexure P-4), whereby his services have been terminated in view of clauses 3 and 13 of his appointment letter dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure P-2), by giving him one month pay in lieu of the notice period, on the ground that he is not possessing the essential qualification for the post. In the advertisement (Annexure P-1), the educational qualification for the post of Assistant Manager was prescribed as Graduation (full time regular course) in any discipline from a recognized University. While making application, the petitioner mentioned his CWP No. 15619 of 2009 -2- qualification as BA, B.Ed., M.A in English and MBA. On the basis of the facts stated in the application, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Manager vide appointment letter dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure P-2). In the appointment letter, there was a specific condition that the appointment was subject to the condition that the appointee must be eligible as per the advertised eligibility criteria for the post and subject to verification of the documents submitted by him with the application. On verification, it was found that the petitioner is not possessing the Graduation degree of full time regular course. Thereupon, he was asked to submit the proof with regard to possessing the Graduate degree as regular student. In response to that, the petitioner produced a certificate from M.D. University, Rohtak, that the petitioner had passed BA-I and BA-II as regular student and BA-III through Distance Education. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner did not pass Graduate degree with full time regular course, his services were terminated in view of term and condition of the appointment letter, which provides that during the period of probation, the services are liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice or payment of one month's emoluments in lieu thereof. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. During the course of arguments, it is not disputed that the petitioner does not possess B.A (Graduate) degree as a regular student and B.A. degree possessed by the petitioner can not be taken as full time CWP No. 15619 of 2009 -3- Graduate degree. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner is possessing B.Ed. Degree as a regular student, therefore, he should be deemed as a Graduate in Education and be considered as eligible for the post. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. One year B.Ed degree is not a Graduate degree as the same is not equivalent to B.A/B.Sc. The basic qualification for the post required in the advertisement is Graduation (full time regular course) in any discipline from a recognized University. The B.Sc./BA and B.Ed degrees are different and the same cannot be equated. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the petitioner is possessing degrees in M.A (English), B.Ed. and MBA, which are higher degrees, therefore, even if he is not possessing the Graduation (full time regular course), he should be deemed eligible for the post. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. & others Versus Kerala Public Service Commission & others, JT 2002 (Suppl. 1) SC 85. This contention of the petitioner also cannot be accepted. The minimum basic qualification for the post is Graduation (full time regular course). If the petitioner is not possessing full time regular course in Graduation, he cannot be considered eligible, merely on the ground that he is possessing Degrees of M.A English and MBA, which are higher qualification in different faculty and do not pre- suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. In Yogesh Kumar and others Versus Govt. of NCT Delhi and others, AIR CWP No. 15619 of 2009 -4- 2003 Supreme Court 1241, it has been held that when for appointment to the post of primary teachers, essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement was one year's Trained Teachers Certificate (TTC), non- selection of candidates possessing B.Ed. degree was proper. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B. Ed. qualification is concerned, the same cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the natures of training imparted for grant of certificate and degree are totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B. Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B. Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC. Thirdly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the post of Assistant Manager can be filled by direct recruitment by advertisement as well as by campus recruitment. He submits that for campus recruitment, full time Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management/Master of Business Administration/Master of Management Studies/Master of Human Resource Management is required. Since the petitioner is possessing the degree of Master of Business Administration (MBA), therefore, he should be considered eligible. This contention also cannot be accepted. Undisputedly, the post in question was filled up by a direct recruitment by advertisement and in the advertisement, there was a specific condition that the candidate CWP No. 15619 of 2009 -5- must be Graduate (full time regular course) from a recognized University. Since the petitioner is not possessing this basic qualification, he cannot be considered eligible on the ground that he fulfills the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Manager, if filled through campus recruitment. Fourthly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before terminating the services of the petitioner, opportunity of hearing was not provided to him. This contention is also not acceptable. In the writ petition itself, the petitioner has stated that he was asked to submit the proof with regard to passing of his BA as a regular student. Concededly, the petitioner has not passed BA as a regular student. The Graduation degree obtained by him was not full time regular course. Even during the course of arguments, this fact has not been disputed. The petitioner has also not disputed clauses 3 and 13 of the appointment letter under which his services have been terminated. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that services of the petitioner have rightly been terminated by paying him one month pay in lieu of the notice period, as he was on probation and during the verification of his certificates, he was found not eligible for the post. Before the respondent, he could not produce the proof of his passing BA degree as a regular student. Dismissed. October 09, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE