2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 82400

MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
KUTTI@JAYAMURUGAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP BY – Respondent
CRL OP/52/2022

Equivalence certificates issued by universities are sufficient to establish that a candidate possesses the required educational qualification for a particular post, even if the educational qualification prescribed for the post is different from the candidate's degree.

Headnote:

EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE - RECRUITMENT - ELIGIBILITY - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - REVIEW - [The order of the learned single Judge suffers from error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch this Court ought to have seen that equivalence certificate by itself would not automatically confer eligibility in the absence of regulations or notification inviting submission of applications provides so.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a B.Tech (Information Technology) graduate from Anna University, applied for the post of Programming Officer in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC). The educational qualification prescribed for the post was "Graduate Degree in Computer Engineering" with 60% marks or "B" level Diploma as defined by the Department of Electronics, Government of India. The petitioner had obtained an equivalence certificate from Anna University stating that her B.Tech degree was equivalent to a Graduate Degree in Computer Engineering. The ONGC rejected her application on the ground that she did not possess the required educational qualification. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras, challenging the ONGC's decision. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the ONGC to consider the petitioner's application.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the ONGC was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application solely on the ground that she did not possess a Graduate Degree in Computer Engineering. The Court held that the equivalence certificate issued by Anna University was sufficient to establish that the petitioner possessed the required educational qualification. The Court also held that the ONGC could not rely on a subsequent advertisement which had amended the educational qualification requirements for the post of Programming Officer, as the recruitment process had to be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions in the advertisement and rules existing when the recruitment process began.

Issues: 1. Whether the equivalence certificate issued by Anna University was sufficient to establish that the petitioner possessed the required educational qualification for the post of Programming Officer in the ONGC?2. Whether the ONGC could rely on a subsequent advertisement which had amended the educational qualification requirements for the post of Programming Officer?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the equivalence certificate issued by Anna University was sufficient to establish that the petitioner possessed the required educational qualification for the post of Programming Officer in the ONGC. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Meena and others Vs State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484, wherein it was held that "the equivalent qualification must be recognised such in the recruitment process. In the present case, this process was initiated through advertisement inviting application which did not indicate that equivalent or higher qualification holders were eligible to apply nor were the equivalent qualifications reflected in the recruitment rules or government orders of the relevant time."2. The Court held that the ONGC could not rely on a subsequent advertisement which had amended the educational qualification requirements for the post of Programming Officer, as the recruitment process had to be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions in the advertisement and rules existing when the recruitment process began. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Meena and others Vs State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484, wherein it was held that "recruitment process must must be completed as per terms and conditions in the advertisement and as per Rules existing when the recruitment process began."

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the review petition and stayed the operation of the order dated 16.10.2019 in W.P.5923 / 2013 passed by this Hon'ble High court pending disposal of the above Rev.Aplw.No.52 of 2022 in W.P.No.5923 of 2013 respectively.