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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Neelam Kerketta - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019
Decided On :  07-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate, Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II M/s. K.C. Suman & Gaurang Jajodia, ACs. to GP-II
Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr.S.C.-III, Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate, Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate

The prescription of minimum educational qualifications for a post is a recruitment policy matter. In exercise of judicial review, courts must not determine the equivalence of qualifications, as such assessment is strictly the domain of the recruiting authority based on the requirements of the role.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Eligibility - Prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy - Determining the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter for judicial review and resides within the domain of the employer - It is the duty of the recruiting agency to scrutinize whether a candidate possesses the requisite qualifications stipulated in the advertisement. (Paras 22, 24)

(B) Service Law - Selection Process - Documentary Proof - Where an applicant fails to produce a specifically required diploma at the time of verification, the rejection of candidature is justified - The judiciary cannot expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications or direct the acceptance of alternative degrees as equivalent. (Paras 25, 29, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners applied for technical posts requiring a specific diploma as an essential qualification. During document verification, they failed to produce the mandated certificate, offering instead different technical diplomas and claiming them to be equivalent to the requirement. Consequently, their candidatures were cancelled by the recruiting authority for failure to satisfy the eligibility criteria.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the employer has the authority to define the qualifications for a job to suit the nature of duties. Since the advertisement explicitly required a particular diploma and did not mention that equivalent degrees would be considered, the candidates' inability to submit the exact certificate justified the cancellation of their selection.

Issues: Whether the court has the mandate to declare different technical qualifications as equivalent to the one prescribed in an advertisement and whether the recruitment authority’s rejection of a candidate for non-possession of the specific mandatory certificate is legally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The prescription of educational qualifications is a policy matter that does not permit judicial intervention. The court reiterated that determining the equivalence of courses is the sole function of the recruiting agency, and the failure of a candidate to fulfill the stated conditions of an advertisement renders them ineligible for the position.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. court oversight for administrative cancellation of candidature. (Para 1 , 2)
2. equivalent diploma courses constitute valid professional qualification. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. claim of equivalence despite certificate non-compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. strict adherence to mandatory advertisement eligibility criteria. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. judicial review limits on determining qualification equivalence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. court cannot equate degrees without employer guidelines. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. candidates responsible for seeking verification before application. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT :

W.P.(S) No. 2163 of 2019 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4-the Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi to declare the petitioner successful in ‘Jail Hospital Paramedical Combined Competitive Examination-2018’ under ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2018. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Important Notice No. 10 dated 16.04.2019 issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner has been declared ineligible and her candidature has been cancelled on the ground that she has not submitted required certificate of ‘Diploma in X-Ray Technician’.

2. W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of ‘X-Ray Technician’ pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2018 as vide Important Notice No. 10 dated 16.04.2019, he has been declared ineligible and his candidature has been cancelled by the respondent- JSSC on the ground that he possesses certificate of ‘Diploma in CT Scan Technician’ instead of ‘Diploma in X-Ray Technician’.

Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 2163 of 2019

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner- Neelam Kerketta submits that the petitioner completed one year ‘Diploma Course in Radiography’ conducted by the Department of Radiology, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga (Bihar) during the session-1997-1998 and a certificate to that effect was issued to her vide memo no. 783 dated 11.03.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner got herself registered under the Jharkhand State Paramedical Council, Ranchi, vide registration no. 1686 dated 17.09.2014 and till the date of filing of the present writ petition, she was working on contractual basis in Sadar Hospital, Doranda as a paramedical Staff.

4. It is further submitted that Advertisement No. 01/2018 was issued by the respondent no. 4 for conducting the Jail Hospital Paramedical Combined Competitive Examination-2018 for appointment of eligible Para-Medical Staffs on the various vacant posts in different Jail Hospitals of the State of Jharkhand. As per the said advertisement, altogether 10 posts of ‘X-Ray Technician’ were advertised, out of which 3 posts were reserved for ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category. The petitioner applied for the post of ‘X- Ray Technician’ under the ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category and after being declared successful in the written test, she was called vide Important Notice No. 06 dated 08.02.2019 for verification of documents which was scheduled to be held on 14.02.2019.

5. The petitioner appeared for documents verification and got all her documents verified, however vide letter no. 2569 dated 14.02.2019, she was asked to submit the original certificate of Intermediate, pursuant to which she submitted the said certificate within the stipulated date and time. Subsequently, letter no. 2744 dated 28.02.2019 was issued by the respondent no. 4 asking the petitioner to submit the certificate of ‘Diploma in X-Ray Technician’ mentioning that she had submitted the certificate of ’Diploma Course in Radiography’. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the appropriate authority of Department of Radiology, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital,

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