IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 278 of 2009 Saurabh Deep Singh …………….Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……..Respondents. Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The appellant had applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Biology. For the aforesaid post, the prescribed qualification was M.Sc. either in Botany or Zoology. The advertisement did not allow the acceptance of the candidature of an individual possessing qualifications equivalent to M.Sc. in Botany or Zoology. 2. The appellant qualified the examination of M.Sc. in Plant Science and on the basis thereof, sought consideration in the process of selection to the advertised post of Lecturer in Biology. The candidature of the appellant was provisionally accepted in the first instance, however, thereafter by an order dated 12.06.2006, he was held ineligible for the advertised post. 3. The order dated 12.6.2006 was impugned by the appellant by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.906 of 2006. The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.11.2009. This Court arrived at the conclusion that the appellant did not fulfil the prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Biology. This Court also expressly recorded that he appellant had not assailed the criterion prescribed by the authorities for selection/appointment to the post of Lecture in Biology, and as such, the appellant was bound to satisfy the prescribed requirements. 4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.11.2009, whereby Writ Petition (S/S) No. 906 of 2006 was dismissed, the appellant has preferred the instant Special Appeal. 5. During the course of hearing, the solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that M.Sc. in Botany is the same thing as M.Sc. in Plant Science, and as such, merely because a different nomenclature has been prescribed for the qualification awarded to the appellant, he should not be denied to participate in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Biology. 6. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no material whatsoever on the record of the case so as to demonstrate that the two qualifications (i.e, M.Sc. Botany and M.Sc. Plant Science) are identical and only the nomenclature of the qualification awarded to the appellant is different. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Despite the same, the appellant has not placed any material on the record of this case so as to demonstrate that the subjects prescribed as also the course content for the aforesaid two qualifications, were the same. Additionally, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant was asked whether the University from which he had acquired the qualification of M.Sc. in Plant Science, also awarded the qualification of M.Sc. in Botany. To this query, the learned counsel for the appellant responded by answering in the affirmative. It is, therefore, apparent that if one University issue qualifications with two different nomenclatures, the two qualifications cannot be treated as the same. For this reason also, we are satisfied that the solitary submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. 7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant Special Appeal is dismissed. Since the instant appeal itself has been dismissed on merits, it is not necessary to pass a formal order disposing of the application of condonation of delay. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 2.4.2010 Avneet