SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(HP) 115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of H.P. & anr. - Respondents
CWP No. 337 of 2020
Decided on : 13-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A. G., with Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G. & Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. A.G..

Point of Law: R & P Rules for post clearly provide for recognition of qualification and not higher qualification.

Headnote:

Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2003 - Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956 - Rule 10 (a) (ii) - Academic qualification - Offer appointment to post - Candidature was not considered - Did not possess requisite qualification - Candidature of a person having higher qualification cannot be rejected as higher qualification is deemed to be included acquisition of lesser qualification – Petitioner cannot be permitted to urge that he possesses higher qualification, which would meet requirement of specific qualifications specified in rules or advertisement. (Para 21)

Finding of the Court: When a qualification has been set out under relevant Rules, same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted - Higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of Rule to effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for post shall be sufficient for post - It is only when a person has acquired higher qualification in same faculty, can such qualification be stated to presuppose acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for post - R & P Rules for post in question clearly provide for recognition of qualification and not higher qualification - Wherever respondents-State intended to make degree holders eligible, it has been so specifically mentioned in advertisement notice itself as would be evident from recruitment notice (Annexure P-2) relating to post – Court find no merit in instant petition.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

The petitioner has done Bachelor of Technology from J. K. Gujral Punjab Technical University Jalandhar. In response to the advertisement for the post of Trainer Engineering Drawing, the petitioner applied, but his application was rejected on the ground that essential qualification as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post in question was 3 years diploma in Mechanical/Automobile/Production Engineering, whereas academic qualification of the petitioner, as stated above, was B.Tech. in mechanical engineering. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents-State, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive relief:

    “That the impugned communication dated 3.1.2020 (Annexure P-4) as well as appointment orders dated 3.1.2020 (Annexure P-5) qua the post of Trainer Engineering Drawing may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post of Trainer Engineering Drawing as the petitioner has qualified the entire selection process successfully in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. According to the petitioner, the candidature of a person having higher qualification cannot be rejected as the higher qualification is deemed to be included the acquisition of lesser qualification.

3. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it is reiterated that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered because he did not possess the requisite qualification of having 3 years Diploma in Mechanical/Automobile/Production Engineering and thus was rightly excluded from consideration.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

5. The following qualifications have been prescribed for the post of Trainer Engineering Drawing in the advertisement notice issued by the respondents:-

    i) Matric with Science and Math from a recognized university/Board or equivalent.

ii) 3 years Diploma in Mechanical/Automobile/Production Engineering from recognized State board of Technical Education or equivalent.

Or

ii) a National trade certificate in Draughtsman (Mechanical) or equivalent recognized by NCVT or equivalent preferably National Apprenticeship Certificate under Apprenticeship Training Scheme after National Trade Certificate with 2 years’ experience in the trade.

b. Craft Training Institute Training of at least one year duration in the trade concerned.

6. It is more than settled that essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer, who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. (Refer: Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others 2019 (6) SCC 362).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the rule in question only prescribes for minimum qualification and would, therefore, not debar the consideration and eligibility of the candidate, who has high

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top