MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H. P.
LAWS(HPH)-2021-2-20
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on February 22,2021

MANOJ KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sureshwar Thakur,J. - (1.) The writ petitioner holds, as becomes unfolded by Annexure A-1, a diploma, from the Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board, in the discipline, of, Electronics and communication Engineering. In pursuance thereof, he applied against the advertised post, of,J.E. (Electrical), and his application, was made from the general (BPL category), wheretowhom, some of the advertised post(s), became reserved. However, through Annexure A-4, the petitioner became communicated, that his candidature, warrants rejection, as, it has become pronounced, by, the Apex Board, that the afore diploma, in Electronics and Communications, is, unbefitting for empowering, the petitioner to seek his becoming, considered for selection and appointment, against the advertised post, of,J.E. (Electrical), (a) and, nor it satiates the essential qualification, as becomes borne in the apposite Recruitment and Promotion Rules, wherein, a prescription occurs, inasmuch as, the aspirants' holding a diploma/degree, in Electrical Engineering or Electronics Engineering, from, an institution, recognized by the State Government/Central Government. Since, the juxtaposing Anneuxre A-1, wherethrough, the writ petitioner, is, displayed to obtain a diploma, in Electronics and Communication Engineering, vis-A-vis, the afore alluded imperative essential qualification, hence prescribed in the apposite Recruitment and Promotion Rules, embodied in Annexure-R/2-A, does, reveal qua rather Annexure A-1, prima-facie, making departure(s) or deviation(s) therefrom, (b) inasmuch as, therein, the aspirants concerned, being enjoined to possess a diploma/degree in Electrical Engineering or Electronics Engineering, from an institution, recognized by the State Government or Central Government, (c) whereas, with the apposite diploma, embodied in Annexure A-1, rather unfolding qua therein(s) depictions occurring that in addition to, the enjoined discipline, of Electronics, his also during the apposite course, of, his completing, the tenure, of, his studies, hence receiving instructions, in the discipline, of, Communication Engineering, thereupon, prima-facie, the cancellation, of, the candidature of the writ petitioner, for the afore post, does, hold an iota, of, validity.
(2.) Dehors, the afore, during the pendency, of, original application, bearing No. 2117 of 2016, an order, of, 13.1.2017, became rendered by the learned earstwhile H.P. State Administrate Tribunal, (i) where through, the fitness, or suitability of, the writ petitioner, to apply against the advertised post, and/or, vis-A-vis, the afore echoing(s), made in Annexure A-1, being construable, to, be co-equal, to, the prescribed educational criteria, became pronounced, to, be referred, to the Equivalence Committee. However, the afore order, became challenged by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, through, its constituting CWP No. 422 of 2017, and thereon on 12.7.2018, a decision was made, wherein a direction was made, upon, the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, to, after considering the report, of, the Equivalence Committee, and, after affording an opportunity, to all the parties, its making a decision, on merits, upon the lis, borne in CWPOA No. 36 of 2019. The learned counsel for the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, submits before this Court, that the report of the Equivalence Committee, borne in Annexure A-6, when in the concluding paragraph thereof, makes a declaration, that the educational qualification, possessed by the writ petitioner, and as became embodied in Annexure A-1, is, un-befitting, for, the advertised post, (ii) thereupon(s), it cannot be treated, as, an appropriate qualification, for the post, of, Junior Engineer (Electrical), (iii) and, hence sanctity, is, enjoined to be meted thereto. In making the afore submission, appertaining to this Court, becoming barred to make, an, independent, from the afore conclusion, hence judicial review, of, the afore, he has placed reliance, upon, a verdict, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 11853-11854 of 2018, wherein, the afore judicially expostulated bar, against the writ Court, making, an, independent/departing hence Judicial Review, vis-A-vis, adversarial to the aspirant, hence conclusion(s), of, the Equivalence Committee, become(s) carried, in, paragraphs 22 and 23 thereof, paras whereof, become(s) extracted hereinafter: "22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita B (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench. 23. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well taken into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must treat warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned."
(3.) Even though, the afore conclusion, occurring in Annexure A-6, Annexure whereof, is, the report, of the Equivalence Committee, hence constituted, for making an equivalence, interse the educational qualifications, embodied, in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, and, vis-A-vis, the purported, in, harmony therewith essential qualifications, rather, possessed by the writ petitioner, and, as become borne in Annexure A-1, does, in its concluding paragraph, borne in Annexure A-6, carry the hereinafter extracted conclusion(s): "The committee was also of the opinion that the Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering OR Diploma in Electronics Engineering cannot be treated as appropriate qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical)" And, though the writ Court, becomes barred, to make any departing therefrom, any judicial review thereof, bar whereof, becomes encapsulated in the judgment (supra) rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, an incisive reading thereof, is, imperative, for hence therethrough(s), the, borne therein(s) ratio decidendi, becoming culled out, for thereafter it becoming applied, to, the facts at hand. In the afore endeavor, the striking portions thereof, become enjoined to be extracted, inasmuch as, therein(s) (a) the State becoming bestowed with the entitlement, of, prescribing qualification(s) or educational eligibility(ies), vis-A-vis, the advertised post, (b) equivalence, of, prescribed qualification(s), being not a matter, which can be determined, in the exercise, of, judicial review, c) whether a particular qualification, should or should not be regarded as equivalent, being a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine, d) the State as an employer, may legitimately, bear in mind, several features, including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification, and, the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. All the afore parameters, hence borne in judgment (supra), rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon their respective satiation, rather bar the exercising, of, the powers, of, judicial review, by a writ Court, importantly, vis-A-vis, the apposite equivalence(s), made by the Equivalence committee. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.