Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Shivaji Pandey, Partha Sarthy, JJ.
The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and ors. – Appellants
Versus
Pappu Kr. Pankaj, S/O Gopal Prasad (Roll No 109391) and ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.210 of 2019
Decided On : 03-05-2021
Recruitment and appointment - Equivalent certificates - Qualification - Corporation has reconsidered the case of writ petitioners as per the direction issued by this Court, Refused to hold that their respective degrees are at par with the qualification mentioned in the advertisement or it is equivalent to the said degree - Thereafter, writ petitioners have challenged that order successfully and learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned order, which is under challenge before this Court by the appellant Corporation.
Finding of the court: Court already held hereinabove that granting of equivalence to any degrees does not fall within the domain of Court, but it lies to Expert Body, and it is better for Court to keep away or refrain from embarking on such exercise, but it should be left to the wisdom of expert body and we do not have any expertise in field to hold that any qualification is equivalent to another, it is within domain of expert body, which are best body to find out equivalence and hold that degree is identical to another degree, but AICTE, which is main body, has filed its counter affidavit specially has given parawise reply with regard to equivalence of qualification and has categorically stated that respondents do not possess matching qualification prescribed in advertisement and their qualification cannot be stated to be identical or equivalent certificates - Court directs Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (appellant no.2) to take action against those who donot have matching qualification, but they have been appointed on plea of equivalence of qualification, but after giving them proper hearing before passing any adverse order against them - Challenge in this memo of appeal, is quashed and set aside.
Result: Appeal allowed
Based on the provided legal document, the following key legal principles and points emerge:
Judicial Review on Degree Equivalence: The court emphasizes that the determination of whether a degree is equivalent to the prescribed qualification in a recruitment process is a technical and expert matter. Such decisions are to be made by specialized bodies with requisite knowledge and expertise, not by the courts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Role of Expert Bodies: Decisions regarding the equivalence of educational qualifications should be based on specific orders or resolutions issued by recognized expert bodies, and such decisions are to be respected unless shown to be based on extraneous, irrelevant, or mala fide considerations (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Court’s Limited Jurisdiction: The court refrains from substituting its judgment for that of expert bodies on technical academic matters like equivalence of degrees. It is only when such decisions are arbitrary, irrational, or manifestly wrong that courts may intervene (!) (!) (!) .
Consistency and Fairness in Recruitment: The rules and qualifications fixed in the advertisement at the time of initiation of the recruitment process are binding. Midstream changes or relaxations of eligibility criteria, including claims of equivalence, are not permissible unless explicitly provided in the recruitment rules or through a corrigendum (!) (!) .
Non-Application of Judicial Power to Alter Rules: The power of the court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution does not extend to rewriting or modifying the eligibility criteria set by the employer or the recruitment authority. The criteria are to be applied strictly as per the advertisement or rules existing at the time of recruitment (!) (!) (!) .
Prohibition of Relaxation of Qualifications: The authority responsible for recruitment does not have the inherent power to relax essential qualifications unless such power is explicitly provided for. Relaxation, if permitted, must be exercised within the bounds of the rules and with proper reasons recorded (!) (!) (!) .
Implication of Nomenclature and Recognition: Different nomenclature for qualifications (e.g., PGDM vs. MBA) does not automatically imply equivalence. Recognition by relevant authorities (like AICTE or UGC) and specific orders are necessary to establish equivalence (!) (!) (!) .
Effect of Midstream Changes: Changing rules or eligibility criteria after the commencement of the selection process, or without proper corrigendum, is impermissible and can invalidate the process or appointment (!) (!) (!) .
Role of Recognition and Accreditation: Recognition by bodies like AICTE or UGC is crucial but does not automatically confer equivalence. The decision on whether a qualification from a particular institution or through a specific mode (e.g., distance learning) is equivalent to the prescribed qualification must be made by the competent expert body, not courts (!) (!) (!) .
Fair Hearing and Due Process: Candidates who are appointed or considered on the basis of claims of equivalence must be given a fair hearing and proper opportunity to present their case before adverse actions are taken (!) .
In summary, the legal framework underscores that the determination of educational qualification equivalence is a specialized, technical process to be handled by competent authorities. Courts should exercise restraint and avoid substituting their judgment, especially when the recruitment rules and advertisement specify particular qualifications. Any deviation or mid-process alteration of criteria without proper authority or procedure can be deemed illegal and liable to be set aside.
JUDGMENT :
SHIVAJI PANDEY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 05.11.2018 passed in CWJC No. 16481 of 2017 (Pappu Kumar Pankaj and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) along with its analogous case bearing CWJC No. 4458 of 2017 (Avinash Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has quashed the decisions of Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vide Memo Nos.7576 dated 31.07.2017, 7579 dated 31.07.2017, 7577 dated 31.07.2017, 7581 dated 31.07.2017, 7589 dated 31.07.2017, 7587 dated 31.07.2017, 7590 dated 31.07.2017, 7582 dated 31.07.2017, 7571 dated 31.07.2017, 7585 dated 31.07.2017, 7583 dated 31.07.2017, 7584 dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure-1 series) and Memo No. Nil dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure-2) by which it has been held that the respective writ petitioners, who were possessing the qualification, do not match with the qualification mentioned in the advertisement i.e. M.B.A./P.G.D.B.M and, as such, the claim made by the writ petitioners has been rejected. The orders, which were under challenge in the writ application, were taken into consideration in the order passed in CWJC No. 17093 of 2016 in which this Court has considered thoroughly, the qualifications and their possession of the certifications, gave direction for consideration in the light of discussion made in that judgment/order.
3. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (appellants herein) issued an advertisement for recruitment and appointment to the post of Assistant Manager and Assistant Accountant. In the present case, the dispute is confined only with respect to the post of Assistant Manager. As per the advertisement, the total 407 post were divided in different categories, the educational qualification fixed, for that post, the candidate must possess degree of MBA/PGDBM from recognized University/ institute approved by AICTE. The writ petitioners (private respondents herein), in pursuance of advertisement, applied for the said post.
4. From the records, it appears that Pappu Kr. Pankaj (petitioner no. 1, Roll No.109391) has acquired the qualification of Master in Human Resources Management (MHRM) from Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, an autonomous institute under Magadh University, Bodh Gaya; Md. Ajaj Akhtar (petitioner no. 2, Roll No.101333) has acquired the qualification of Master of Human Resources Management (MHRM) from Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, an autonomous institute under Magadh University, Bodh Gaya; Alok Kumar (petitioner no. 3, Roll No.114699) has acquired the qualification of Master of Human Resources Management (MHRM) from Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, an autonomous institute under Magadh University, Bodh Gaya; Sumit Prabhakar (petitioner no. 4, Roll No.101223) has acquired the qualification of Master of Human Resources Management (MHRM) from Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, an autonomous institute under Magadh University, Bodh Gaya; Raj Kumar (petitioner no. 5, Roll No.113615) has acquired the qualification of Master in Human Resources Management (MHRM) from Institute of Management Technology, Cente for Distance Learning, Ghaziabad, but University name has been shown as Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, West Bengal; Manoj Singh (petitioner no. 6, Roll No.107641) has acquired the qualification of M.A. in Personnel Management & Industrial Relation (PMIR) from the Patna University; Md. Nazaruddin (petitioner no. 7, Roll No.105300) has acquired the qualification of M.A. in Personnel Management & Industrial Relation (PMIR) from the Patna University; Shamsay Alam (petitioner no. 8, Roll No.113316) has acquired the qualification of M.A. in Personnel Management & Industr
Post of Assistant Manager and Assistant Accountant - Power of Judicial Review on issue of equivalence of Degree - Court directs Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limi....
There is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisiti....
a candidate for recruitment to any post must possess the requisite qualification statutorily prescribed and the Court exercising the power of judicial review cannot expand upon the ambit of prescribe....
Courts cannot determine equivalence of educational qualifications; such determinations are reserved for expert bodies.
Courts have a limited role in academic matters and cannot act as an appellate authority over the decisions of expert bodies unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or mala fide.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
