IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 18116 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 26, 2009 Gauttam and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Virender Singh Punia, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for a declaration that Appendix ‘B’, Entry No. 3 of Rule 7 of the Haryana Health Department Tuberculosis (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (Annexure P-9) prescribing the qualification for appointment to the post of Tuberculosis Health Visitor, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or in the alternative issue a direction to the respondents to treat the Diploma of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) at par with the educational qualification of Tuberculosis Health Visitor Course. The equation of the educational qualification has been claimed on the basis of instructions dated 29.12.2005 (P-8). 2. The petitioners aspire to be regular incumbent on the post of CWP No. 18116 of 2009 Tuberculosis Health Visitor. An advertisement dated 10.1.2009 (P-1) was issued inviting applications for 18 posts and the educational qualifications prescribed are as under:- “E.Q. i) Matric with Science (Physics & Chemistry) ii) Qualified Tuberculosis Health Visitor course from any institution recognised by Government. iii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard.” 3. The petitioners have qualification of 10+2 with Physics and Chemistry. They have also one year’s diploma in the discipline of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male). For illustration, the diploma certificate of petitioner No. 8 has been placed on record (P-3). However, one of the essential qualifications required for appointment to the post of Tuberculosis Health Visitor that a candidate should have possessed is Tuberculosis Health Visitor Course from any institution recognised by the Government, which the petitioners do not possess. They have claimed that one year’s diploma of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) is at par with the Tuberculosis Health Visitor Course. The principal reliance of the petitioners is the letter dated 4.5.2006 (P-7) and letter dated 28.12.2005 (P-8). 4. On behalf of the petitioners it has been argued that they have been given training in respect of Tuberculosis also as is evident from their diploma certificate (P-3). It has also been pointed out that the Haryana State TB Control Society has given appointment to the petitioners on the post of Tuberculosis Health Visitor despite their qualification of Diploma in Multipurpose Health Workers (Male). Therefore, it is claimed that the qualification has to be considered equivalent and the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 (P-4) rejecting 2 CWP No. 18116 of 2009 their applications by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula, is liable to be quashed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners we find that the prescription of qualification is a function which is exclusively within the domain of the rule making authorities. The courts cannot undertake the task of equating one qualification with another because the courts are not well equipped for undertaking any such exercise. The subject of Tuberculosis may be a part of the studies during diploma course or it may be half of the part of the diploma course possessed by the petitioners. The courts do not know the contents or could go into such a question. The issue has been settled more than three decades ago by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76. In para 13 of the judgment it has been laid down that the subject of equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards. It involves practical attainments of such qualifications and the experts are required to aid in deciding the issue. The state also keep an eye on the number of students allowed to acquire a particular qualification which may have co-relationship with the number of post available for that qualification. If courts start interfering the whole arrangement is turned topsy-turvey. Therefore, 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 undertake such a task unless it emanates from mala fide, extraneous considerations or so irrational or perverse that a reasonable person would not accept the same. Similar view has been expressed in a recent judgment by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of 3 CWP No. 18116 of 2009 Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252, wherein it has been held that prescribing minimum educational qualification for admission to a course and recognising certain educational qualification as equivalent to or higher than the prescribed one, involves a policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with the power under any statute. Discussing the scope of interference by the courts, it has been further laid down in para 10 that there is a limited scope to interfere by the courts which could examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rationale and reasonable ground or such a decision is arbitrary and is not informed by extraneous consideration or mala fide intention. 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it can safely be concluded that the Courts cannot undertake the exercise of equating the qualification of Diploma of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) at par with the Tuberculosis Health Visitor Course. 7. No other argument has been advanced. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) November 26, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 4