S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) WHERE the qualifications for a post are spelt out by a statute, or precisely prescribed by the employer -State, can it insist on literal adherence thereto irrespective of either an unprescribed equivalent or a higher academic qualification therefrom possessed by Applicants seeking appointments to the said post ? This is the common core question in this set of five petitions referred for an authoritative decision by the Full Bench.
(2.) THE matrix of somewhat similar facts may be taken from G.W.P. No. 2231 of 1983 Som Datt v. State of Haryana. The Petitioner therein had secured his M.A. degree from the Agra University and later had passed the Bachelor of Education Examination from the Kurukshetra University. In response to an advertisement made, by Respondent -2 Director of School Education, Haryana for 1679 posts of J.B.T. Teachers, he applied for appointment thereto. Admittedly, the prescribed qualifications for the said posts were as under: (i) Matric (Full) with English as one of the subjects, (ii) Pass in two year J.B.T./Diploma in Education Training Course from the Haryana Education Department or equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Education Department. The Petitioner received a communication from Respondent No. 2 that since he did not possess the minimum prescribed qualifications aforesaid for the post, his application was to be rejected, but if he has any grievance with regard thereto, he may appear before the Selection Committee. Consequently, the writ Petitioner, on July 30, 1982 appeared before the Selection Committee and claimed that he possessed higher qualifications than the prescribed qualifications and therefore, should be deemed to be eligible and could not be excluded from consideration. The Petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee but was later informed that his case could not be considered since he did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification of two years' J.B.T. Diploma from the Haryana Education Department. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is that though he did not literally possess the prescribed qualification of two -years J.B.T. Diploma, yet he had a degree in Bachelor of Education and thus in fact higher qualifications than those prescribed and his claim cannot be ignored in the eye of law. The firm stand taken on behalf of the Respondents is that the possession of allegedly higher qualifications of Bachelor of Education is of no significance because the courses of J.B.T. are different and of different duration and therefore, the possession of Bachelor of Education qualification would not render the Petitioner eligible to be appointed against J.B.T. posts meant to teach the lower primary classes. It is the stand that possession of J.B.T. Diploma is a pre -requisite for the post of such a teacher. It is particularised that the J.B.T. is a professional training which is done after passing Matric or Higher Secondary Examination and its duration is of two years and training is given for the teaching of primary classes whereas B.A., B.Ed, is a training of one year's duration done after graduation and is general in nature. The syllabi for the J.B.T. Training is specially focussed on teaching the primary classes and tailored to the needs of small children. On the other hand, in B.Ed. training, the same is directed to teaching higher secondary classes and no specialised training for teaching children is given. The J.B.T. training has provisions of teaching elementary psychology which is an important ingredient for primary school teachers, whereas in case of Bachelor of Education, there is no such provision. In sum, the firm stand is that it is for the Respondent -State to insist on the particular qualifications prescribed and it is not obliged to consider persons supposedly of higher qualifications or even equivalent qualifications unless specially recognised as such already.
(3.) AT the very motion stage after notice to Respondents, a conflict of precedent was brought to the notice of the Bench and it was observed that this could only be resolved by a larger Bench and that is how the matter is now before us.;