IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13534 of 2010 NILESH KUMAR & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioners: Mr.Rajneesh,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv. For the A.I.C.T.E. : Mr. S.N.Pathak,S.C.C.4. For the State : Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P.20. For the Magadh University: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. ----------- 2/ 03/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the A.I.C.T.E., for Magadh University and learned counsel for the State. The State Government published an advertisement on 18.9.2009 inviting applications for the post of City Manager. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for M.B.A. was „P.G.‟ degree/diploma in Public Administration or „P.G.‟ degree in Town Management/Planning and Development from a recognized institution/university. The petitioners are diploma holders in course of Master of Human Resources Management earlier described as Personal Management and Industrial Relations. The course is stated to be approved by A.I.C.T.E. and the L.N. Mishra Institute (hereinafter called the Institute) from where the petitioners have completed their course is also recognized. The course pursued by the petitioners is not - 2 - one of the specified eligibility in the advertisement. The advertisement did not contain any clause for an equivalent qualification. Nonetheless, the fact is that the application of the petitioners came to be accepted and they claim to have successfully competed in the written examination and have also been called for interview. The final results which have been published do not contain the name of any candidate who has pursued the Master of Human Resources Management from the aforesaid institute. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the diploma held by them was equivalent to a qualification of M.B.A. It was submitted that the institute on 1.6.2010 has written to the Urban Development and Housing Department requesting that the diploma in Master of Human Resources Management may be considered as equivalent to M.B.A. to protect the career of the students. The institute has also pointed out that persons with the aforesaid qualifications have been considered for appointment as Programme Manager in the Rural Development Department. The petitioners claim to have represented to be considered for such appointment under the aforesaid advertisement based on their performance in the written - 3 - test and interview. It is submitted that they have secured higher position than those who have been appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once the Rural Development Department decided to consider Master of Human Resources Management as equivalent to M.B.A. there was no justification for the Urban Development Department not to do so. The respondent State Government having accepted their applications and allowed them to participate in the written test and the interview is now obliged and is, by its own conduct, bound to consider them for appointment in accordance with their respective merit position by treating their qualification as equivalent to M.B.A. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the selection process is over and all appointments have been made. The writ application is belated. The eligibility qualifications for a post advertised is for the employer to decide. The employer is the most competent to decipher what kind of personnel, what kind of qualification it requires keeping in mind its own job requirements. The job profile is therefore the yardstick on which the employer decides the eligibility criteria. Naturally the employer wants the best available with best qualifications for the specified purpose for - 4 - which it needs the personnel. The Court cannot substitute its views for the job requirement, the job profile and what kind of qualification and expertise the employer should lay down for the same. That is the employer‟s prerogative keeping in mind its own interests. The Court cannot re-write the advertisement by inserting something which the employer did not consider prudent to incorporate. If the employer did not provide in the advertisement for any qualification equivalent to M.B.A., as may have been its requirement, it shall not be the jurisdiction of the Writ Court to so direct. This Court can do no better than quote the third paragraph of the letter of the Institute dated 01.06.2010 which reads as follows: “We would request you to kindly consider the degree of M.H.R.M. as equivalent to M.B.A. and protect the career of M.H.R.M. students of this Institute.” As discussed, every job shall have its own necessity of qualifications based upon its job profile. What may be a good qualification in the Rural Development Department for the post of a Programme Officer cannot automatically lead to a conclusion that the same qualification is also equally good for the post of City Manager. This is an aspect for the employer to decide keeping in view the nature of job, duties and responsibility of the post of a Programme Manager in the - 5 - Rural Development Department and that of a City Manager in the Urban Development Department. It is not for the Court to sit in the administrator‟s chair and rewrite the eligibility conditions. If the applications of the petitioners were accepted, contrary to the advertisement which did not provide for any equivalent qualification, the very acceptance of their applications being contrary to the law, the question of estoppel does not arise. If they were wrongly permitted to appear in the written examination and the interview contrary to the terms of the advertisement, they cannot demand that the illegality be perpetuated by carrying it to its logical end. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds it difficult to make any observation or give any direction for consideration of the candidature of the petitioners based on their performance in the written examination and the interview. It may only be noted that the State contends that the selection process is over. This Court does not find it possible to grant any relief to the petitioners. If the L.N. Mishra Institute has sent any communication to the State Government for acceptance of the diploma in Master of Human Resources Management as equivalent to M.B.A. for specified - 6 - reasons, this Court expects the State to consider it appropriately in future. Matters of academic qualification and equivalence are to be left to experts in the matter and it is not for the Court to substitute its views for the employer or the expert. The Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 2642 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lata Arun) has held at paragraph-12 as follows:- “12. From the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” In (2009) 1 SCC 610 (GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY Versus SANJAY KUMAR KATWAL AND ANOTHER) it has been held at paragraph-15 as follows:- “15. The first respondent has passed his MA (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the appellant University has recognized MA (English) (OUS) of - 7 - Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to MA of appellant University. Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant University for admission to the three year law course.” The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)