A candidate with a higher qualification than the prescribed qualification cannot be denied appointment, especially when the department itself recognized the higher qualification as requisite for the post.

1. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 15/11/2016 passed in W.P. No. 3595/2013.

2. Looking to the facts of the case, with the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally at the motion hearing stage itself.

3. M.P. Professional Examination Board, issued an advertisement on behalf of respondent no. 2 for various posts. One of the post was Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant). The appellant applied for the aforesaid post, she was permitted to appear in the examination and she secured 82 marks and placed at serial number 4 in Instructor of Math's/Drawings and serial no. 40 in Instructor Computer Operator & Programming Assistant of select list.

4. The appellant was called for verification of the documents, she appeared before the authorities, however, she was not received an order of appointment. As per the appellant another candidate Ms. Vinita Gupta who was at serial No. 142 in the merit list, was given appointment on the post of computer operator.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the appellant filed a writ petition before this court. She pleaded that she had a requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant), she was placed in the merit list, however, she was not given appointment and a person who was below to the appellant in the merit list was appointed.

6. The respondents in the return pleaded that the requisite qualification to the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant), the post for which the appellant submitted her application was (1) High School Certificate or in old pattern 11th pass from any recognised Board or equivalent. (2) Degree/Diploma in computer science and Engineering or 'O' Level certificate from D.O.E. or BCA from recognised University/Board and two years experience of degree or diploma. The appellant did not have degree/diploma in computer science she was having degree of MCA which was not equivalent to qualification as prescribed for the post, hence, the appellant was not eligible for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant).

7. The appellant contended before the writ court that she had qualification of MCA, Master of computer application which is higher qualification then BCA. The appellant further contended by way of rejoinder before the writ court that in subsequent advertisement which was published by the respondent no. 3 for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant).

Respondent no. 3 itself recognised the qualification of BCA/MCA as a requisite qualification for the post, hence, rejection of the candidature of appellant was illegal.

8. The writ court rejected the contention of the appellant after holding that the requisite qualification as fixed in the advertisement was BCA, the appellant did not have had the aforesaid qualification, hence, her candidature was rightly rejected by the concerned department.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the order passed by the writ court is contrary to law. The appellant was having qualification of MCA which is better qualification in comparison to BCA. Apart from this in subsequent advertisement, respondent no. 3 treated MCA degree equivalent to B.C.A. or valid degree for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant) and this fact has not been considered by the writ Court, hence, the order passed by the writ court is contrary to law. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-

(1) Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others (2000) 2 SCC 606.

(2) Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Triveni Sharan Mishra (2014) 10 SCC 346.

(3) Mahesh Prasad Shukla v. State Bank of India and another 2006(3) M.P.L.J. 115.

(4) Triveni Sharan Mishra v. Life Insurance