Case: ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KOCHI  Vs. AARYA K. BABU

which was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Masters degree¬holder in the said subject would also be suitable for being considered. There could have been intending candidates who would have applied for becoming candidate as against the said advertised post, had they known and were informed through advertisement that Industrial Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the said post. 27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage held that a Masters degree¬holder in Industrial Chemistry would be better suited for manning the said post without there being any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that the University is now manning the said post by having a person from the discipline of Pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to Pure Chemistry stream."If the above decision is kept in perspective it is clear that while examining the correctness of the action of the employer what would be sacrosanct will be the qualification criteria published in the Notification, since if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream is accepted by the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it, without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification but had not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possess the qualification sought for in the Notification though they otherwise held another degree. Therefore, if there is any change in qualification / criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of the selection process and the employer / recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications from those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along with the applications received in response to the initial notification. The same principle will hold good when a consideration is made by the Court. 15. If in that background the instant facts are taken note, it would disclose that the Notification depicting the qualification required as Degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was issued on 17.11.2014 and the process of selection had come to an end when the private respondents herein were issued the appointment letters dated 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively. Admittedly as on such date the Notification required the candidates possessing B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) but the private respondents were graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not qualified to respond. The change was made subsequent thereto by the general corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry), which would be effective from that day by providing opportunity to all those holding that qualification. Therefore, in such cases the change of qualification whereby the qualification of the private respondents gets included subsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone when several others who could have applied were prevented from doing so. 16. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence relating to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issue has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, (1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it is held that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government. 17. In that backdrop, though in the instant facts presently the qualification possessed by the private respondents is decided to be included for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer, as on the date of the recruitment Notification the same was not included therein, which cannot be substituted by the Court with retrospective effect for the reasons stated above. Therefore, in the said circumstance, in the present facts, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion. We, however, make it clear that though we have referred to the legal position and applied the same to the case of the parties who are before us, if in the case of similar recruitment, the employers themselves have permitted the equivalence and have continued such of those officers recruited, this decision shall not be applied to initiate action against such officers at this distant point of time. Subject to the above, the orders passed by the High Court of Kerala which are impugned herein are set aside. 18. Having arrived at the above conclusion we also take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the private respondent in the appeal arising out of SLP© No.16567/2016 namely Smt. Aarya K. Babu that she is placed in a very difficult circumstances subsequent to the discharge from service which is also due to certain set back in her personal life. Though we do not wish to articulate the actual fact situation narrated we have no reason to disbelieve the same, hence, we find it appropriate that in her case it is necessary to exercise our discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution to serve the ends of justice and do complete justice without prejudicing either of the parties.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. Though we have taken note of the said contention we are unable to accept the same. We are of such opinion in view of the well-established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and thereby include certain qualifications which have not been included in the Notification by the employer. Further the rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been open for the candidate concerned to challenge the Notification alleging denial of opportunity. On the other hand, having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in the Notification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by such candidate is equivalent and thereby seek consideration for appointment nor will it even be open for the employer to change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selection process or accept any qualification other than the one notified since it would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the qualification but had not applied as it was not notified.In fact, this view is fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 555 relied on by the learned counsel for thethe above decision is kept in perspective it is clear that while examining the correctness of the action of the employer what would be sacrosanct will be the qualification criteria published in the Notification, since if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream is accepted by the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it, without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification but had not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possess the qualification sought for in the Notification though they otherwise held another degree. Therefore, if there is any change in qualification / criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of the selection process and the employer / recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications from those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along with the applications received in response to the initial notification. The same principle will hold good when a consideration is made by the Court.If in that background the instant facts are taken note, it would disclose that the Notification depicting the qualification required as Degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was issued on 17.11.2014 and the process of selection had come to an end when the private respondents herein were issued the appointment letters dated 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively. Admittedly as on such date the Notification required the candidates possessing B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) but the private respondents were graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not qualified to respond. The change was made subsequent thereto by the general corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry), which would be effective from that day by providing opportunity to all those holding that qualification. Therefore, in such cases the change of qualification whereby the qualification of the private respondents gets included subsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone when several others who could have applied were prevented from doing so.Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence relating to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issue has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, (1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it is held that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government.In that backdrop, though in the instant facts presently the qualification possessed by the private respondents is decided to be included for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer, as on the date of the recruitment Notification the same was not included therein, which cannot be substituted by the Court with retrospective effect for the reasons stated above. Therefore, in the said circumstance, in the present facts, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion. We, however, make it clear that though we have referred to the legal position and applied the same to the case of the parties who are before us, if in the case of similar recruitment, the employers themselves have permitted the equivalence and have continued such of those officers recruited, this decision shall not be applied to initiate action against such officers at this distant point of time. Subject to the above, the orders passed by the High Court of Kerala which are impugned herein are set aside.Having arrived at the above conclusion we also take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the private respondent in the appeal arising out of SLP© No.16567/2016 namely Smt. Aarya K. Babu that she is placed in a very difficult circumstances subsequent to the discharge from service which is also due to certain set back in her personal life. Though we do not wish to articulate the actual fact situation narrated we have no reason to disbelieve the same, hence, we find it appropriate that in her case it is necessary to exercise our discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution to serve the ends of justice and do complete justice without prejudicing either of the parties.