IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the state has the authority to determine the qualifications for public service positions, and equivalence of qualifications is not subject to judicial review.

ORDER :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the discriminatory action of the respondent authorities of treating the petitioner as ineligible for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class – III, on the ground that the petitioner does not possess requisite educational qualification. It is the case of the petitioner that the said decision is taken up by the authorities after the petitioner appeared in all stages of selection and secured more marks than the last selected candidate under the SEBC category. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner possess requisite qualification.

2. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 12.02.2009 issued by the respondent-Board for the recruitment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III, 680 posts, in the fixed pay of Rs.4500/- for initial five years, out of which, 184 posts are reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) candidates. The petitioner herein applied for the said post in SEBC category. The petitioner herein successfully cleared the physical examination and the elimination test conducted by the respondent – Board. Thereafter, the petitioner herein appeared in both; the main examination as well as the oral interview. The petitioner herein secured 209.5 marks however, the name of the petitioner figured in the list of ineligible candidates. The candidate having secured 193.5 marks was selected for appointment on the post in the result declared on 31.08.2010 for the said recruitment process.

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s degree of Post Diploma in Fine Arts (in Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) is equivalent to the Master of Fine Arts. Reliance is placed on the certificate issued by the Dean Faculty of Fine Arts on 03.09.2010 duly produced at page 20, Annexure – E.

3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent authority has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature to the appointment to the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs :

“7. The petitioner respectfully prays that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to :-

(A) quash and set aside the decision of the respondent authorities dated 16.9.2010, as contained in Annexure-F to this petition, whereby, the petitioner is treated to be ineligible for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III and further be pleased to declare and hold that the petitioners is eligible to be considered for appointment on the said post pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.2.2009, Annexure-A to this petition, and

(B) further be pleased to direct the respondent Board to include the name of the petitioner in the list of the candidates who are selected for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, and

(C) award the cost of petition, and

(D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Board to include the name of the petitioner in the list of the candidates who are selected for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, and

(E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the c