IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 905 of 2006 (S/S) 1. Devendra Kumar Mishra S/o Dr. Shivcharan Mishra R/o C-1/ 153, Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 2. Ran Vijay Singh S/o late Ram Chandra Singh C/o Sri Ravindra Singh R/o Quarter No. 476-A, RPF, Training Center Colony, N.E. Railways, Gorakhpur, U.P.. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary, Madhyamik & School Education Department, Dehradun. 2. Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Aayog Bhawan, Gurukul Kangri Kankhal, Haridwar, through its Secretary 3. University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Through its Secretary 4. Association of Indian Universities AIU House, 16, Comrade Indrajeet Gupta Marg, (Kolta Marg), New Delhi. 5. M.J.P. Rohilkhand University Bareilly through its Registrar ...…………. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 2 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 12th of June 2006, issued by respondent No. 2. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to treat the degree of M.Sc. Plant Science equivalent to degree of M.Sc. Botany for all purposes and consider the candidature of the petitioners and give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Lecturer in Biology against the advertisement No. 1 / Seva / 2003-04. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, advertised posts of Lecturers in Government Intermediate Colleges, including the post of Lecturer in Biology. The petitioners, in response to said advertisement, submitted their applications for the post of Lecturer in Biology. However, the petitioners did not hold the degree either in M.Sc. Zoology and M.Sc. Botany. The petitioners are postgraduate in Plant Science. The petitioners’ case is that the M.Sc. degree in Plant Science is equivalent to that of M.Sc. Botany. It is pleaded by the petitioners that they were provisionally allowed to appear in the interview on the condition that they shall produce a certificate from the University Grants Commission to 3 the effect that the degree of M.Sc. Plant Science is equivalent to that of M.Sc. Botany. It is further pleaded that the petitioners was not called for the interview on the ground that they does not possess the requisite minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer in Biology. The petitioners’ case is that they obtained a certificate from the Registrar and Head of the Department of Plant Science and submitted the same, but their candidature was rejected. Earlier, in the similar circumstances, one Saurabh Deep Singh (not petitioner in this petition) filed Writ Petition No. 257 (S/S) of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.03.2006, directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner. Vide impugned order dated 12th of June 2006, the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, has rejected the candidature of the petitioners finally stating that they are not qualified for the post of Lecturer in Biology. 4) A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, in connected Writ Petition No. 906 (S/S) of 2006, stating that the course of M.Sc. Plant Science is equivalent to M.Sc. Botany. However, in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it has been stated that for the post of Lecturer in Biology, one is required to hold Masters degree in Zoology or Botany. It is further stated that the qualifications for the post of Lecturers in the Intermediate Colleges are decided by the Madhyamik 4 Shiksha Parishad, and the Public Service Commission is bound by the qualifications fixed for any such post. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, in which it has been stated that the petitioners in their applications for the screening test held on 26.09.2004, gave a declaration claming themselves to be qualified for the post. But, after the screening test was over when the petitioners were directed to submit the certificate of their educational qualification, they could not show any degree either that of M.Sc. Zoology or that of M.Sc. Botany. But, they had filed postgraduate degree in Plant Science. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that State Government vide its letter dated 28.12.2005, has clarified that the post of Lecturer in Biology, as per the U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer Grade) Service Rules, 1992, requires degree of M.Sc. Zoology or degree of M.Sc. Botany. The State Government further clarified that no other degree except M.Sc. Botany and M.Sc. Zoology is recognized for the post of Lecturer in Biology (copy of said Government clarification is Annexed as Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2). As such, the respondent Public Service Commission has rejected the candidature of the petitioners in view of the provision contained in U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer Grade) Service Rules, 1992. The petitioners are allowed only provisionally to appear in the interview on the condition 5 that they shall produce a certificate from the University Grants Commission to show if the postgraduate degree in Plant Science was equivalent to postgraduate degree in Botany or that of Zoology. The petitioners failed to show any such certificate. As such, the petitioners’ candidature were rightly rejected. It is also stated that petitioners made wrong declaration in response to advertisement in their OMR applications due to which they were allowed to appear in the written examination. In reply to Para 18 of the writ petition it has been stated that Professor of N.J.P. Rohilkhand University is not a competent authority to declare the equivalence of degrees. In reply to Para 19 of the writ petition it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the degree of Kaide Azam University, Islamabad, has also no concern in the matter of State Government in prescribing the qualification for a particular post, nor on the basis of their letter, a degree can be treated equivalent to that of another. 5) In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the petitioners were asked by the University to show the certificate from University Grants Commission relating to the equivalence of the degrees claimed by the petitioners, the Vice Chancellor of the Lucknow University wrote a letter dated 13.03.2006 6 (copy of which is Annexure –8 to the writ petition) to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, on which on behalf of the University Grants Commission it was endorsed that the matter regarding equivalence of degrees is being dealt by A.I.U. Attention of this Court is also drawn on behalf of the petitioners to the copy of letter dated 20th of March 2006, issued by Association of Indian Universities, wherein it is mentioned that since the professor and Head of Department of Plant Science of Rohilkhand University has clarified that the course and contents of the M.Sc. Plant Science are equivalent to the M.Sc. Botany, the clarification given by the Head of Department may be accepted. However, close scrutiny of this letter shows that Association of Indian Universities has not on its part declared whether M.Sc. Plant Science is really equivalent to the degree of M.Sc. Botany. It has not even discussed what subject are taught in M.Sc. Plant Science, which are common or different to the subjects taught in the M.Sc. Botany. 7) Apart from the above facts what is relevant is that the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, is bound by the qualifications mentioned in the U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer Grade) Service Rules, 1992 (applicable to the State of Uttarakhand) which prescribes qualification for the post of Lecturer in Biology in Intermediate Colleges. It is specifically mentioned in said Rules that for the post of a Lecturer in Biology, a postgraduate degree in Zoology or Botany 7 from recognized University established by Government of India, is the prescribed qualification. As such, the respondents have committed no error of law in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Lecturer in Biology. Unless, the aforesaid Rule is amended by the State Government, it cannot be said that the respondents were bound to accept the candidature of the petitioners who had held neither the degree of M.Sc. Zoology, nor that of M.Sc. Botany. The Rule nowhere provides that any equivalent degree will be acceptable as a qualification for the post of Lecturer in Biology. 8) It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have neither challenged the rule nor had they challenged the advertisement in which it was specifically mentioned that the candidate must possess Masters degree in Zoology or in Botany. 9) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition has no force, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. (Interim Relief Application No. 8346 of 2006 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 18, 2009. H. Negi