- (1.) HEARD on question of admission.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the Explanation Note to Schedule I of The Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963') and Note to Schedule I of Rajasthan Revenue Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1975(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975'). Schedule I of the Rules of 1963 provides that for the post of Accountant, a candidate for direct recruitment must hold a degree in Arts, Science or Commerce of a University established by law in India or of a foreign University declared by the Government in consultation with the Commission to be equivalent to a Degree of University established by law in India or must have passed Intermediate Examination of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants, Calcutta or Intermediate Examination of the Institutes of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi. Explanation appended to Schedule I of the Rules of 1963 further provides that for the purpose of the Schedule a degree in Arts or Science does not include a Degree in Agriculture, Medicine, Engineering and Technology. The Rules were enacted in 1963 and have remained invogue for last 50 years. An Advertisement was issued on 09.09.2008 by Rajasthan Public Service Commission inviting the applications for the posts of Accountant, Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. 68 posts of Accountants, 322 posts of Junior Accountants and 61 posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountants were advertised. Joint competitive examination was held under the Rules of 1963 and the Rules of 1975. The petitioner passed the examination, however, he has not been appointed on the ground that he was not possessing the requisite qualification. Candidature of the petitioner has been rejected vide communication dated 24.04.2012(Annexure-9 of the writ petition). Hence, the petitioner has questioned the vires of the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 1963 on the ground that the petitioner is holding the qualification of BDS, which is equivalent to the graduate degree and is a better qualification than graduation in Arts, Science or Commerce. The qualification, which has been prescribed under the rules, excludes the degree in Agriculture, Medicine, Engineering and Technology, the provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Now time has come when even a graduate in Medicine can be considered for appointment on such posts also, due to problems generated by unemployment. The petitioner has submitted that posts of accounts officer can be filled from assistant account officer and assistant account officer may have the qualification of degree in Medicine, Agriculture, Engineering and Technology. Thus, it is case of hostile discrimination by adding explanation in the Schedule appended to the rules. For the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, provision has been made in the Rajasthan Accounts Service Rules, 1954(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1954'). It is further submitted that a person has to go through the training before appointment on such posts, as such, there is no rhyme and reason in excluding the qualification of degree in medicine. It cannot be assumed that persons holding such degree cannot perform the duties of Junior Accountant/Accountant. In the changed scenario, opportunity to stake claim must be given to such incumbents, who are holding the degree in medicines also, for such posts. Hence, instant writ petition has been preferred. Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that provisions made in Schedule I of the Rules of 1963, particularly in Explanation are ultra vires, violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no rhyme or reason to exclude the incumbents possessing qualification of degree in Medicine from staking their claim for the post of Junior Accountant/Accountant. When they can be appointed as Accounts Officer, they could not be precluded from staking their claim for the posts of Junior Accountant/Accountant as well. He has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of N.S. Mehta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1673. Thus, the provisions made in the Schedule appended to Rules be declared ultra vires. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length and going through the Rules of 1963, Rules of 1975 and Rules of 1954, we are of the considered opinion that submissions raised by Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned Senior Counsel are bereft of merits. Schedule I appended to the Rules of 1963 prescribes for qualification of degree in Arts, Science or Commerce for appointment on the post of Accountant and Junior Accountant and Explanation appended thereto excludes degree in Agriculture, Medicine, Engineering and Technology for said purpose. There is specific exclusion of degree in Agriculture, Medicine, Engineering and Technology. Provisions contained in the Schedule I appended to the Rules of 1963 are quoted below: S.N. Name of post Source of Recruitment with percentage Conditions of eligibility and qualification for direct recruitment Post from which appointment by promotion is to be made 1 Assistant Accounts Officer 100% by Promotion - Accountant 2 Accountant By direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio 1:4 A candidate for direct recruitment must hold a degree in Arts, Science or Commerce of a University established by law in India or of a foreign University declared by the Govt. in consultation with the Commission to be equivalent to a Degree of University established by law in India or must have passed Intermediate Examination of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants, Calcutta or Intermediate Examination of the Institutes of Chartered Accountants of India New Delhi. Junior Accountant 3 Junior Accountant 100% by direct recruitment through competitive examination provided that (i) Out of the total number of vacancies of Junior Accountants to be filled in by first competitive examination vacancies to the extent of 22, shall be reserved for persons belonging to category (b) in column 4,(ii) in filling vacancies the candidates belonging to category (b) of Column-4 shall be considered for appointment on passing the written examination only, irrespective of their relative rank as compared with other candidates; and (a) Candidate for direct recruitment must hold a degree in arts, Science or Commerce of University established by Law in India or a Foreign University declared by the Government '$ in consultation with the Commission to be equivalent with a degree of a University established by Law in India. Explanation:- For the purpose of the Schedule a degree in Arts or Science does not include a Degree in Agriculture, Medicine, Engineering and Technology. (emphasis added by us)
(3.) IT is apparent from bare reading of the qualifications prescribed in the Schedule I that a candidate for direct recruitment on the post of Accountant and Junior Accountant must hold a degree in Arts, Science or Commerce of a University established by law in India or of a foreign University declared by the Government in consultation with the Commission to be equivalent to a Degree of University established by law in India. The posts of Accountant and Junior Accountant are Class III Posts. It is a matter for the experts to prescribe the qualifications for a post after considering the nature of the work of a post. Considering the aforesaid aspect, Explanation has been added in Schedule I of the Rules of 1963, which excludes degree in Agriculture, Medicine, Engineering and Technology. The purpose of the rules appears to exclude these degrees, as the incumbents holding these degrees are not supposed to possess expertise required for the post of Accountant and Junior Accountant. It is not for the Court to substitute wisdom and prescribe qualification for a post or to interfere in such matters. The Rule was enacted in the year 1963, which has prevailed for the last 50 years. Court has to be loath in disturbing the same. Even otherwise, the petitioner knew very well, when he filed his application, that he is not qualified as per advertisement and as per the explanation in Schedule I of the Rules of 1963. He kept quite and waited for four years. The petitioner should have preferred the writ petition earlier in any point of time in 2008 itself, when he was aware of the provisions contained in the Schedule of the rules. The petitioner should not have waited till 2012 for formal decision to question the vires of the rules. Even otherwise, we find on merits that provisions cannot be said to be ultra vires. ;