The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of equivalence in academic qualifications and the Court's authority to direct the constitution of an expert committee to examine the same.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK PURI, J.

1. The matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing in the light of Pandemic COVID-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. The petitioner is seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 26.09.2018 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”).

3. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.04.2016, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Tribes category, had applied for the post of Store Keeper with the respondent. As per the advertisement dated 16.04.2016, the eligibility criteria of the post was specified as following:-

“Essential:

(i) Bachelor degree in Economics/Commerce/Statistics.

(ii) Postgraduate degree/diploma in Material Management from a recognized University/ Institute or equivalent.

Desirable:

Experience in handling stores and record keeping in a store preferably medical or concern of a repute in public or private sector.

OR

(1) Degree of a recognized University or equivalent.

(2) Postgraduate degree/diploma in Material Management of a recognized University/ Institution.

(3) Three years experience in handling stores, stores preferably medical stores in Govt. Public/Private Sector.”

4. The petitioner had passed MBA (Retail Management) and he was declared to be ineligible as per the recruitment rules of the post. The petitioner had submitted an original application before the Tribunal for issuance of directions to the respondent to treat him eligible, but the same has been dismissed vide the impugned order primarily observing that equivalence of educational qualification is purely a technical academic matter and it has to be considered by the appropriate authority/expert that too by specific order duly published prior to initiation of recruitment process and further the petitioner had himself admitted that he has studied “majority of the subjects that are taught in Post Graduate Degree/ Diploma in Material Management.” As such, it has been concluded that the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Material Management is different from Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Retail Management.

5. The respondent has put-forth a case to the effect that post of Store Keeper was advertised on 16.04.2016. The petitioner was declared ineligible on 20.01.2017 by the scrutiny committee as he was not having the requisite qualification. The recruitment process has been concluded and the result has been declared. However, after the declaration of the result, the recruitment rules were amended on 26.05.2017 and new advertisement has been issued on 12.10.2020 to fill up the available and vacant posts. The petitioner cannot be considered for the post advertised in the year 2016 as he was ineligible at that point of time.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a degree holder in MBA (Retail Management) and on the basis of the equivalence, he is eligible for the post of Store Keeper. The petitioner has been declared ineligible without referring the matter to an expert committee. Furthermore, the Rules have been amended by the respondent and the eligibility criteria has been prescribed for all MBA degree holders. In such circumstances, it can be fairly assumed that even as per the version of the respondent, there was equivalence in the degree of MBA held by the petitioner and consequently, all the MBAs have been included in the subsequent amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in LPA No. 1110 of 2012, Anju Kumari vs. State of Haryana and Another, decided on 20.09.2012 to argue that the matter is liable to be referred to an expert committee to go into the question of equivalence involved in the present case.

8. On the contrary, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the selection process initiated in the ye