PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 810, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 810 
PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 13368 of 2015) 
NOVEMBER 06, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
c 
Service law: Appointment - Post of Range Officer 
(Forest) - Minimum qualification prescribed in the Rules for 
applying to the post of J & K Forest Service Range Officers 
Grade-I was "B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any 
University recognized by /CAR" - Eligibility of appellant 
D candidate who completed B.Sc. with forestry as one of the 
major subjects from Garhwa/ University and also completed 
M Sc. (Forestry) from same University - Held: He is eligible 
for appointment to the post of Range Officer (Forest) - J & K 
Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1970. 
E 
' 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The minimum qualification prescribed for 
applying to the post of J & K Forest Service Range 
F Officers Grade-I was "B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from 
any University recognized by ICAR". It is not disputed 
that the appellant was to his credit a qualification of 
B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the major subjects and 
Masters in Forestry, i.e. M.Sc.(Forestry), on the date when 
G he applied for the post in question, which satisfied the 
eligibility criteria so far as the qualification was 
concerned. There is no justification in the reasoning of 
the High Court that in order to be an eligible candidate, 
the appellant should have done B.Sc. in Forestry and 
H since he had
not done so, he was not considered as 
810
PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY v. STATE OF JAMMU & 
811 
KASHMIR 
an eligible candidate. This reasoning does not stand to A 
any logic and is, therefore, not acceptable insofar as 
the facts of this case are concerned. Firstly, if there 
was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing 
the qualification in the advertisement, then it should 
have been clarified by the authority concerned in the B 
advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, . 
then benefit should have been given to the candid.ate 
rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, eyen assuming 
that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet 
the appellant was admittedly having B.Sc. degree with C 
Forestry as one of the major subjects in his graduation 
and further he was also having Masters degree in 
Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry). In the light of these facts, 
the appellant was possessed of the prescribed 0 
qualification to apply for the post in question and 
his application could not have been rejected treating him 
to be an ineligible candidate for not possessing 
prescribed qualification. If a candidate has done B.Sc. 
in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also E 
done Masters in the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry) 
then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, 
the candidate possessing such higher qualification has 
to be held to possess the required qualification to 
apply for the post. 
In fact, acquiring higher F 
qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was
sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the 
prescribed qualification. It was coupled with the fact 
that Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects 
in graduation, due to which he was able to do his G 
Masters in Forestry. [Paras 22 to 25) [815-H; 816-A-H; 
817-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
13368of2015 
H
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2013 of 
the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at 
Jammu in Letter Patent Appeal No. 102 of 2012 
Roh it Sthalekar,Avi Tandon, Saurabh Trivedi, Advs. for 
B theAppellant. 
c 
G.M. Kawoosa, N. Ganpathy, Sunil Fe 1nandes, Ms. 
Nithin Jain, Ms. Astha Sharma, Puneeth K., Advs., for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order 
D dated 10.05.2013 passed by the High_ Court of Jammu & 
Kashmir at Jammu in L. P.A. f'...lo. 102 of 2012 whereby the 
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed 
by the appellant herein while upholding the judgment dated 
12.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High 
E Court in SWP No. 2699 of 2010. 
F 
G 
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, 
which lie in a narrow compass, few relevant facts need mention 
lllfra. 
4. The appellant completed B.Sc. with Forestry as one 
of the major subjects from Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in 
the year 2001. Thereafter he also completed his M.Sc.(Forestry) 
from the same University in the y~ar 2003. 
5. The appellant also passed the National Eligibility Test 
(NET) in Forestry from Indian Council of Agricultural Research 
(ICAR) in the year 2005-2006. 
6. The J & K Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment 
H Rules, 1970 (in short 'the Rules')
lays down the eligibility
PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY v. STATE OF JAMMU & 
813 
KASHMIR [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
qualifications for the post of Range Officer Grade-I (Forest) A 
which is "B.Sc. Forestry or its equivalent from any 
University recognized by the Indian Council of 
Agricultural Research". 
7. The Indian Council of Forest Research & Education 
B 
(in short "ICFRE") issued Notification dated 15.01.1999 
clarifying that the syllabus of State Forest Service (in short 
'SFS') Colleges was very much akin to that of Indira Gandhi 
National Forest Academy (in Short "IGNFA"), therefore, 
considering the high standard of training and education in the C 
SFS Colleges, the ICFRE resolved that "SFS College 
Diploma to be treated as equivalent to M.Sc.(Forestry)." 
8. By letter dated 15.02.2007, the Forest Research 
Institute (in short 'FRI') informed the Department of Forest, J & D 
K Government, that the SFS Colleges Diploma be treated as 
equivalent to M.Sc. (Forestry). In turn, on 12.03.2007, the 
Forest Department informed the same to the J.K. Public 
Service Commission (JKPSC) endorsii:ig the opinion of the 
FRI dated 15.02.2007. 
E · 
9. 
By Notification dated 20.07.2007, the JKPSC 
advertised 23 posts of J & K Forest Service Range Officers 
Grade-I (Forest) and invited applications from the eligible 
candidates. The eligibility qualification mentioned in the 
F 
Notification was "B.Sc.(Forestry) or equivalent from any 
University recognized by the ICAR". The appointment to 
the post was to be made on
the basis of written test, viva-voce 
test, walking test and medical test. The appellant applied for 
the said post. 
G 
.10. By Notification dated 08.09.2010, the JKPSC 
declared the appellant as an ineligible candidate for 
appointment to the post of Range Officer Grade-l(Forest) on 
the ground that he does not possess the prescribed H
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A qualification. 
11. On 07.10.2010, the appellant sent a representation 
to the JKPSC to re-consider his case as according to him, he 
possessed the qualification prescribed for the post. On 
B 11.10.2010, the appellant sent another representation to the 
JKPSC requesting it to allow him to participate in the selection. 
Since no action was taken on the representation, the appellant 
filed a petition being SWP No. 2699 of 2010 before the High 
Court for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the said 
C notification dated 08.09.2010 and for further direction to the 
Jl<PSC to allow him to participate in the selection process. 
12. The learned Single Judge, by interim order dated 
24.11.2010, allowed the appellant to appear in the written 
D examination subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 
Accordingly, the appellant appeared in the examination. 
13. On 22.02.2011, the result of the written examination 
was produced in the Court by the JKPSC, which declared the 
E appellant as successful. The learned Single Judge permitted 
the appellant to appear in the interview. 
14. On 22.07.2011, the JKPSC published a list of selected 
candidates who were recommended for appointment on the 
basis of merit but the list did not reflect the name of the 
F appellant. 
15. By order dated 12.11.2012, the learned Single Judge 
dismissed the writ petition. 
G 
16. Against by the said order, the appellant preferred an 
appeal being LP.A.
No. 102 of 2012 before the High Court. 
Pending disposal of the appeal, the Division Bench, by interim 
order dated 22.11.2012, directed that one post of Range 
Officer Grade-I (Forest) be reserved for the appellant. 
H However, by order dated 10.05.2013, the Division Bench
PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY v. STATE OF JAMMU & 
815 
KASHMIR [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
dismissed the appeal. 
A 
17. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant 
preferrea this appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
B 
19. Learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the 
legality and correctness of the impugned judgment made two 
submissions. In the first place, he contended that the writ court 
and the appellate court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ 
petition and the appeal. It was his submission that the C 
reasoning of the writ court, which was simply upheld by the 
appellate Court without examining the real issue, is wholly 
perverse and being unsustainable in law deserves to be set 
aside. In the second place, learned counsel contended that 
when admittedly the appellant was having B.Sc. degree in D 
Forestry as one of the major subjects and further he had also 
obtained Masters degree in Forestry, M.Sc.(Forestry), and later 
acquired higher qualification of Masters degree, i.e., M.Sc. in 
Natural Resources and Environment from the University of E 
Michigan, USA, he should have been held as an eligible 
candidate for the post of J & K Forest Service Range Officers 
Grade-I for which he had applied pursuantto the advertisement. 
20. In reply, learned counsel forthe respondents supported 
F 
the impugned judgment and contended that no case is made 
out to interfere in the impugned order and hence the appeal
should be dismissed. 
21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the G 
submissions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. 
22. As would be clear from the undisputed facts 
mentioned above, the minimum qualification prescribed for 
applying to the post of J & K Forest Service Range Officers H
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A Grade-I was "B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any 
University recognized by ICAR". It is not disputed that the 
appellant was to his credit a qualification of B.Sc. wit~ Forestry 
as one of the major subjects and Masters in Forestry, i.e. 
M.Sc.(Forestry), on the date when he applied for the post in 
B question, which satisfied the eligibility criteria so far as the 
qualification was concerned. 
23. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court 
that in order to be an eligible candidate, the appellant should 
C have done B.Sc. in Forestry and since he had not done so, he 
was not considered as an eligible candidate. This reasoning, 
in our view, does not stand to any logic and is, therefore, not 
acceptable insofar as the facts of this case are concerned. 
o 
24. In our considered view, firstly, if there was any 
ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification 
in the advertisement, then it should have been clarified by the 
authority concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if it 
was not clarified, then benefit should have been given to the 
E candidate rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, even 
assuming that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness 
yet we find that the appellant was admittedly having B.Sc. 
degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects in his 
graduation and further he was also having Masters degree in 
F Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry). In the light of these
facts, we 
are of the view that the appellant was possessed of the 
prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and 
his application could not have been rejected treating him to 
be an ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed 
G qualification. 
25. In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry 
as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in the 
Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry) then in the absence of any 
H clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such
PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY v. STATE OF JAMMU & 
817 
KASHMIR [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
higher qualification has to be held to possess the required A 
qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring higher 
qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was 
sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the 
prescribed qualification. It was coupled with the fact that 
Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects in 
B 
graduation, due to which he was able to do his Masters in 
Forestry. 
26. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that 
if the appellant is held eligible on the basis of his qualification, C 
the candidates alike him would be deprived of applying for the 
said post. The argument, in our view, has no merit. 
27. In the first place, no such candidate or/and applied 
for the post and secondly, the argument being wholly hypothical o 
in nature cannot be accepted. 
28. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are not in 
agreement with the view taken by the High Court when it was 
held that the appellant did not possess the prescribed 
E 
qualification. This finding, as held above, is unsustainable and 
thus cannot be upheld. The appeal thus succeeds and is 
accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As a 
c:;onsequence, the writ petition filed by the appellant succeeds 
and is accordingly allowed. Since the appellant has already F 
cleared the written examination and had appeared in the 
interview and further one post was directed
to be kept reserved 
for him by the orders of the High Court in the event, the appellant 
succeeds in this litigation, we consider it appropriate to direct 
the respondents to issue necessary appointment order in 
G 
favour of the appellant for the said post after ensuring 
compliance of the procedural formalities within one month from 
the date of receipt of this judgment. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal allowed. 
H