Civil Writ Petition No.23214 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23214 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 23, 2011 Satyawan Singh Mehra .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Staff Selection Commission & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court through present writ petition second time praying for almost similar and same relief. The petitioner seeks writ or a direction for the respondents to interview him for the post of which he has applied for. The petitioner is holding M.Sc. Biotechnology degree. Respondent No.1 had issued an advertisement inviting applications for different categories of posts. The petitioner being eligible for category 13, 15 and 16 applied for the same. The petitioner received a letter on 19.12.2008, in which it was mentioned that for category No.13, proof of one year experience from reputed Firm/Organization was required. The petitioner then approached the Superintendent Scrutiny and again submitted the requisite documents. When the petitioner did not receive any roll number, he submitted a Civil Writ Petition No.23214 of 2010 -2- representation before the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. When nothing was heard, the petitioner filed CWP No.657 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to constitute a Committee of expert to determine if the degree possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Complying with the said direction, the respondents had constituted a Committee, which had given a report, copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-9. The Committee after discussing the matter in detail, was at the view that M.Sc. degree in Biotechnology is not equivalent to M.Sc. degree in subjects i.e. Zoology, Botany, Bio-Chemistry, Anthropology (Physical), Forensic Science, Human Biology, Micro- Biology, Physics, Mathematics, Statistics and Chemistry. Still the Committee recommended that degree of Biotechnology may be considered for the posts of Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), Senior Scientific Assistant (Serology) and not for Senior Scientific Assistant (Ballistics) which could be done after including the degree (M.Sc Biotechnology) in the Service Rules. Another report was then given by another Committee on the request made by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban. This Committee had resolved that subject specialization and course structure of M.Sc. Biotechnology is different from the subject specialization and course structure of M.Sc, in subject Zoology, Botany, Bio-Chemistry, Anthropology (Physical), Forensic Science, Human Biology, Physics, Mathematics, Statistics and Chemistry. Accordingly, it is stated that claim of the petitioner cannot be considered as he is not possessing the relevant Civil Writ Petition No.23214 of 2010 -3- qualification for appointment to the post. The submission that another candidate named Basant Kumar possessing the same qualification i.e. M.Sc. Biotechnology has been considered eligible, is replied in a manner that Basant Kumar was appointed to the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Crime). As per the existing qualification required for the recruitment to the post is M.Sc (at least 2nd Class) in Zoology/ Botany/ Chemistry/ Physical Anthropology/ Human Biology/ Human Genetics/ Biotechnology/ Molecular Biology and Bio- Chemistry/ Microbiology/ Molecular Biology/ Physics/ Mathematics/ Statistics/ Forensic Science. Thus, Biotechnology was one of the essential qualification relevant for the appointment. The same, however, is not so required for the Senior Scientific Officer (Crime) and (Biology). Accordingly, the petitioner has not been considered eligible. In view of the report of the Committee and the stand of the respondents, there is no merit in the writ petition. The submission that the petitioner would be eligible for appointment in terms of the report of the Committee (Annexure P-9), cannot be accepted as this report cannot be read in isolation. In addition, Mr. Nehra has also drawn my attention to the judgment passed in Babita Rani Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(2) SCT 1029, where a Division Bench of this Court has held that it is not for the Courts to determine the equivalence of qualifications. This proposition of law is very well settled. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. August 23, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE