HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 41 of 2024 Deeksha Dhiman ….....Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission .….Respondent Present:-

Ms. Deeksha Dhiman, petitioner in person through video conferencing.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2287 of 2023 Munabbar Ali ….....Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission .….Respondent Present:-

Mr. Danish Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these writ petition, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.

2. In both these petitions, the challenge is made to a communication dated 22.08.2023 of the respondent Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, by which the petitioners were declared ineligible for the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector and Cane Development Inspector.

3. The respondent published an advertisement for Combined State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Services on 09.08.2021. The petitioners applied for the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector and Cane Inspector. The essential qualification for the said posts was Bachelor in Agriculture from a recognized University. Both the petitioners are Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering from Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. They both appeared in preliminary examination, which was conducted on 12.12.2021. They were declared successful in the preliminary examination. Thereafter, they appeared in the main examination, which was conducted on 28.08.2022. They both were successful in the main examination. But, thereafter, the candidature of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering does not fall in the category of graduate in Agriculture. The challenge is made to that communication by which the petitioners were declared ineligible.

4. The respondent has filed its counter affidavit. According to it, for the recruitment more than one lakh candidates had applied. The applications were invited through online mode and based on the claim as made by the candidates with regard to their eligibility, they were permitted to appear in the preliminary examination. But, after main examination, during document verification, it was revealed that, in fact, the educational qualification that the petitioners possess is distinct than what was advertised. The petitioners were B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering, whereas the eligible condition was graduation in Agriculture. Therefore, according to the respondent, a three member Expert Committee was constituted, which includes two Professors from G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. The Committee gave an opinion that B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is not equivalent to the graduation in Agriculture. Thereafter, according to the respondent, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.

5. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Petitioner Deeksha Dhiman, present in person, would submit that in one of the judgments, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that degree of B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is not equivalent to a Bachelor’s Degree in Agriculture. But, she would submit that subsequent to it, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission realized its mistake and in the subsequent advertisement, when the application for recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant (Group C) was published, in that the qualification B.Tech. Agriculture Engineering has also been included as an eligibility qualification along with B.Sc. in Agriculture. She would submit that the University Grants Commission’s list for graduate courses includes B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering along with B.Sc. in Agriculture. It is also argue