- (1.) THE petitioner, who is B. Sc. in Agriculture from the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner and had also passed Higher Secondary (Agriculture) examination in the year 1988 in First Division, registered with the employment exchange and being eligible, had applied for the post of Agriculture Supervisor in pursuance of the advertisement Annex. 1. He was called for interviewon 17. 6. 1993. Certain candidates were selected. It is submitted by the petitioner that out of 900 appointees, 50 candidates were such who were holding qualifications much lesser than the petitioner i. e. Senior Secondary or Senior Higher Secondary and were included in the select list. THE petitioner wants to submit that the higher qualification in Agriculture were totally ignored whereas persons possessinglower qualifications were appointed as per the order dated 15. 9. 1993. It is stated that as per the advertisement dated 8. 7. 1993, the minimum qualification required for the post of Agriculture Supervisor is to be Higher Secondary with Agriculture (old scheme) or Senior Higher Secondary Agriculture (10+2 ). THErefore, the advertisement was contrary to the Rules where the minimum qualifications are to beb. Sc. Agriculture and, therefore, the selection made by the respondents is to be quashed. A prayer has been made that the advertisement as well as the selection be quashed.
(2.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. The facts so far as the issuance of the advertisement etc. are concerned, are not denied. How-ever, it is submitted that all the 900 candidates selected in pursuance of the advertisements have been appointed. It is further submitted that vide Annex. R. 2 an amendment was made in the Rules and the minimum qualification prescribed for the post in question was incorporated as Senior Higher Secondary under 10+2 with Agriculture or Higher Secondary (Agriculture) under the old scheme. It is furtherstated that the selection had been made as per the judgment handed over in Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1) wherein a direction was issued that the marks for personal interview should be reduced to 10% and for qualifying examination the marks should be prescribed as 80% to 90% in the case of recruitment to the post of Agriculture Supervisors. Vide Annex. 1 an advertisement was issued wherein the minimum qualification prescribed were Higher Secondary Agriculture (old scheme) or Senior Higher Secondary Agriculture (10+2 ). The petitioner is a graduate in Agriculture. To determine the controversy, the respondents were directed to produce the record of the selection. From the record it is found that many Higher Secondaryor Senior Higher Secondary have been selected. It is not denied that B. Sc. Agriculture or even higher qualified persons were ignored in preference to the Higher Secondary or Senior Higher Secondary. It is stated by the respondents that as a matter of fact, as per the judgment, in Dinesh Kumar's case (supra) 90% marks were reserved for the qualifying examination and, thus, a formula was adopted thatthe highest marks being possessed by a candidate in any of the examinations shall be considered for merit i. e. if a candidate is B. Sc. Agriculture having 60% of marks but he possesses 70% marks in the Higher Secondary/senior Higher Secondary, his position in the Higher Secondary/senior Higher Secondary, shall be considered and no marks would be given to such a person for possessing a degree of B. Sc. Agricul-ture i. e. his higher qualifications shall be totally ignored in preparing the merit list. The respondents state that equal treatment has been given to every person and the highest marks obtained in any of the examinations have been counted and taken into consideration by ignoring the position in all other remaining examinations i. e. if a person has highest percentage in B. Sc. Agriculture, that percentage is to be counted and if a person has got highest percentage in Higher Secondary/senior Higher Secondary, in that situation his higher qualifications have to be ignored and no credit is given to him for possessing such higher qualifications. It is stated that the respondents had to adopt this situation because of the judgment in Dinesh Kumar's case (supra ). The total result of such selection is that even if a candidate has 65% marks in B. Sc. Agriculture but 60% marks in Higher Secondary/senior Higher Secondary, he would be superseded by a candidate who is only Higher Secondary/senior Higher Secondary passed but possesses 70% marks. On this principle the result has been prepared and, therefore, it is submitted that no injustice has been done to the petitioner if he has been ignored even if he possesses B. Sc. Agriculture degree to his credit and persons with lesser qualifications have been selected. The respondents have produced the criteria for calculating the marks of the candidates who have passed Higher Secondary/senior Higher Secondary (10+2) i. e. if a person has obtained 79. 5 or above he will be allotted 80 marks. Starting from below if a candidate has obtained 33. 49 percentage of marks in the minimum qualifying examination, he would be entitled to 33 marks, for 34. 49 34 marks, and for 35. 49, he would get 35 marks and so on so forth and for 79. 49% of marks, he shall be allowed 80 marks i. e. the total criteria was based on the qualifying exami-nation. Thus, the possessing of higher qualification was totally ignored. To a question asked from the counsel for the respondents for education that would a candidate having M. Sc. Agriculture or even having Ph. D. in Agriculture but with 70'% marks would be ignored in comparison to that candidate who is Higher Secondary with 75% of marks and the answer was in affirmative. It cannot be said that the res-pondents had made a selection as per the merit of the candidates. The total selection is based on the position of the marks obtained in the minimum qualifying examination i. e. Higher Secondary or Senior Higher Secondary. If all the candidates appearing and/or applying possess the only minimum qualifying examination qualification, there would be no difficulty but if some of them possess higher or highestdegree in Agriculture, they would not be entitled to any credit for being in possession of the highest degree. By ignoring such higher qualifications would be nugatory of the selection itself. There would be a selection but it cannot be said that the best men have been selected. In my view the 90% marks reserved for the qualifications could have beensub-divided into merit in the qualifying examination, graduation and post graduation, experience etc. For example 50% marks could the ear-marked for the merit in the minimum qualifying examination, the other 50% could have been proportionately divided for higher qualifying candidates dependent on the percentage of marks received by them in such examinations i. e. a first class graduate may getmore marks then a second class graduate and similarly a post graduate shall get still more marks. For example, 50% marks can be reserved for qualifying examination, which can be again sub-divided as per the per centage of marks obtained by them, 20 marks can be allocated to graduates, again to be sub-divided in 3rd class, 2nd class and 1st class graduates i. e. 5, 10 and 20 and similarly if a person is postgraduate 20 marks can be reserved for such post graduate in the similar proportion dependent on the percentage of marks in such examination. Only and only then it can be said that a due consideration has been given to the merit of the candidates.
(3.) THE judgment relied upon i. e. Dinesh Kumar's case (supra) cannot be interpreted to say that the higher qualifications of a person are to be totally ignoredin preparing the merit list. If the criteria adopted by the respondents is allowed to be retained, there is bound to be frustration amongst the highly qualified candidates. It can never be held that a higher secondary passed candidate is more meritorious than a graduate or post graduate. In such situation the ignoring of the qualifications and the rights of the graduates or post graduates for allotment ofmarks to them, for the qualifications possessed by them, cannot be said to be a proper course of selection. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is to be allowed to the extent that the selection cannot be said to have been made on merits as more meritorious persons had been ignored because of the criteria adopted by the res- pondent I which criteria cannot be said to rationale vis-a-vis the highly qualified persons. The respondents are advised to re-allocate the marks to be awarded to the candidates possessing the minimum qualifying qualifications, graduation and post graduation, experience and so on so forth. Even though the writ petition is allowed but unfortunately no relief can be given to the petitioner. The selection was made in the year 1993, 900 persons have already been appointed, they have no been made parties and, therefore, no adverse order can be passed against any of those persons. At the relevant time when the merit list was prepared the criteria of selection adopted, was adopted equally forevery person and in such situation, no interference is called for, so far as the present selection is concerned at this stage, therefore, the petitioner can be awarded any relief. ;