Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 June, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:25311]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17948/2023
Om Prakash Gurjar S/o Shri Shrwan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Gaga Ka Kheda, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17552/2023
Narendar Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shiv Raj Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Subhash Nagar, Pander, Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
Mr. S.R. Paliwal for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 04/06/2024
1. The present two petitions have been preferred by the petitioners aggrieved of the action of the respondent authorities in (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (2 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] shifting the names of the petitioners in provisional list and further in not verifying the documents of the petitioners even after the written examination and the interview having been cleared by them, on the premise of degree of M.Sc. as possessed by them being not equivalent to the qualification as required in terms of the advertisement for the post of 'Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry)'.
2. The facts of the case are that vide advertisement dated 13.04.2018, 38 posts for Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry) were notified by the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the RPSC'). The requisite educational qualification prescribed for the said post in the advertisement was as under :
"¼1½ in Øe la[;k 1 ds fy, %&IInd Class M.Sc. (Ag.) Chemistry/Soil Science of a University established by law in India-"
3. The petitioners, possessing a degree of M.Sc (Agriculture) in 'Soil Science - Soil and Water Conservation' applied for the same. Having cleared the written examination, they were called for the interview scheduled to be held on 05.07.2023. After the interviews, the list of successful candidates was issued for the purpose of document verification. Although the names of the petitioners found place at Serial Nos. 37 & 38 in the said list, the same was mentioned to be "provisional". When inquired upon, they were informed that their post-graduation degree is not equivalent to that as requisite and hence, their documents would (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (3 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] not be verified. Aggrieved of the same, the present petitions have been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the requisite qualification as prescribed vide advertisement was M.Sc. (Ag) Chemistry/Soil Science. Firstly, the same did not prescribe any specific branch of Chemistry/Soil Science and secondly, the petitioners are very well in possession of M.Sc. (Agriculture) degree in Soil Science. The same being equivalent to the qualification as prescribed, ought to be considered. Further, the degree has been obtained by the petitioners from a University established by law, to be specific, Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as 'BHU'). Hence, the veracity and sanctity of the same could not have been placed under suspicion by the respondents. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that wherever there arises a dispute pertaining to some degree, the only fact relevant is whether the same has been issued by a University established by law. Once it is established that the University issuing the same is a University established by law, the genuineness of the degree cannot be put to challenge. Further, as per the advertisement, one of the requisite qualifications was M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Soil Science. The petitioners, possessing the said qualification, could not have been ousted from the selection process on the premise that the said degree is not equivalent to the requisite one.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon notification dated 14.03.2023 issued by the Department of Agricultural Research and Education wherein it was notified that the degree in Soil Science includes Masters degree in (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (4 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] Agriculture/Soil Sciences/Agricultural Chemistry/Agricultural Physics with specialization in Soil Physics and Soil and Water Conservation/Soil Fertility/Soil Microbiology/Soil Chemistry/Water Science and Technology.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that even the clarification dated 11.10.2023 as issued by BHU specifies the degree as possessed by the petitioners to be equivalent to the degree in M.Sc. (Ag) Soil Science. There is no plausible reason as to why the clarification issued by BHU has been totally ignored by the respondent authorities.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Sahu Vs. State & Anr.; 2013 SCC Online Raj
837.
6. A reply to the writ petition has been preferred on behalf of respondent No.1 State and respondent No.2 RPSC. The only submission made in the reply by the State is that the qualification as possessed by the petitioners is not equivalent to that requisite in terms of the advertisement. However, in the reply as filed by respondent No.2 RPSC, it has been averred that after the result of the screening test, the applicants were directed to submit their detailed application form with necessary credentials for the purpose of scrutiny and interview. While scrutinizing the said documents as annexed along with the detailed application form, it was found that the petitioners had obtained the Masters degree in 'Soil Science - Soil and Water Conservation' whereas, the requisite educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement was M.Sc. (Ag)Chemistry/Soil Science. Whether the degree of the (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (5 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] petitioners can be termed to be equivalent to the requisite qualification, was an issue and hence, the matter was referred by the RPSC vide letter dated 04.09.2023 to the State Government for seeking clarification and opinion on the same. In pursuance thereof, an Expert Committee was constituted by the State department and the Committee so constituted, concluded that the qualification held by the petitioners is not equivalent to the requisite educational qualification. The report of the Expert Committee has been annexed along with the reply.
Counsel for the RPSC submitted that in view of the report of the Expert Committee, the respondent RPSC was very well justified in not calling the petitioners for document verification.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent RPSC relied upon the judgments rendered by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Vishnu Bawaree Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2021 Supreme (Raj.) 624 and Dr. Shilpa Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2021 Supreme (Raj.) 202 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaaz Ahmad and Ors.; 2019 (2) SCC 404 and Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. Vs. Aarya K. Babu & Anr.; 2019 (8) SCC 587.
7. In rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the so called Expert Committee report is nothing more than a mere eye wash. The said report, on the face of it, shows that the Committee did not even care to compare the curriculum of both the degrees and solely on basis of comparison of codes of the subjects of BHU, concluded the degree to be not equivalent. The said conclusion based solely on the nomenclature (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (6 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] of the codes or number of department code, is highly unreasonable and unsustainable.
Learned counsel further relied upon the communication dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-9) of the university whereby it was again clarified that the degree of 'M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science
- Soil and Water Conservation' is equivalent to 'M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry'.
With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the department be directed to verify the documents of the petitioners and they be granted appointment.
8. Heard learned counsels and perused the material available on record.
9. Two issues arise for consideration of this Court; firstly, whether the degree of 'M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science - Soil and Water Conservation' is equivalent to the degree in 'M.Sc. (Ag) Chemistry/Soil Science' by a University established by law in India and secondly, whether this Court can review the decision of an Expert Committee.
This Court would first ponder over the second issue and conclusion of the same would decide whether the first issue even requires consideration. For the purpose, reproduction of conclusion of the Expert Committee would be apt. The Expert Committee opined/concluded as under :
"3- mDr ijh{kk esa lQy vH;FkhZ ujsUnz dqekj eh.kk ,oa vkseizdk"k xqtZj us cukjl fgUnq fo"ofo|ky; ls M.Sc. (Ag.) Soil and Water Conservation esa mikf/k izkfIr dh gS tks fuEu izdkj ls okafNr ;ksX;rk ls fHkUu ;k vyx fo'k; gS %& • cukjl fgUnq fo"ofo|ky; esa M.Sc.(Ag) Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry dk ,d i`Fkd foHkkx gS ftldk (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (7 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] dkslZ dksM 340 gS ,oa f"k{k.k "kqYd :i;s 3151 izfr leSLVj gS] tcfd M.Sc.(Ag) Soil Science- Soil and Water Conservation iw.kZr vyx fo'k; gS ftldk dkslZ dksM 702 gS ,oa f"k{k.k "kqYd :i;s 3150$25000 (Special Course Fee) izfr lsesLVj gSA ¼ifjf"k'B&IX,X½ • cukjl fgUnq fo"ofo|ky; }kjk lapkfyr foHkkxksa esa M.Sc.(Ag) Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry fo'k; esa SSC- 501, SSC-502, SSC-503, SSC-504, SSC-506, SSC-509, SSC-511, SSC-550, SSC-560 vkfn dkslZ lapkfyr gS tcfd M.Sc.(Ag) Soil Science - Soil and Water Conservation fo'k; esa SWC-501, SWC-502, SWC-504, SWC-506, SWC-511, SWC-550, SWC-560 vkfn dkslZ lapkfyr gSa rFkk mYysf[kr bu nksuksa fo'k;ksa dh fyf[kr izfrfyfi (Transcript) esa n"kkZ;s x;s fo'k; ,oa fo'k; dksM Hkh vyx vyx gSA ¼ifjf"k'B&VII, VIII½ • blh izdkj M.Tech in Agriculture Engineering (Soil and Water Conservation, Engineering under Special Courses of Study) Hkh ,d i`Fkd foHkkx esa lapkfyr gS ftldk dkslZ dksM 355 gS ,oa f"k{k.k "kqYd :i;s 3150$30000 (Special Course Fee) izfr leSLVj gSA ¼ifjf"k'B&IX,X½ • mDr lHkh lwpuk,a cukjl fgUnq fo"ofo|ky; dh oSclkbV ij miyC/k gSaA 4- mijksDrkuqlkj of.kZr rduhdh igyqvksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, fo"ks'kK lfefr }kjk bl izdj.k esa foKkiukuqlkj lgk;d d`f'k vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ¼d`f'k jlk;u½ dh HkrhZ gsrq okafNr "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls mYysf[kr nksuksa vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk esa Li'V :i ls fHkUurk dk vfHker fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA fjiksVZ jkT; ljdkj ds voyksdu ,oa vko";d dk;Zokgh gsrq lknj izLrqr gSA "
10. A bare perusal of the above conclusion makes it clear that what has been compared by the Committee is the subject codes of two post-graduation degree courses as conducted by BHU. The Committee observed that BHU conducts one course in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry (Course Code
340) and other course in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science - Soil and Water Conservation (Course Code 702). The Committee then quoted the subject codes of both these courses and the prescribed fee for both of them. On basis of the same, the Committee (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (8 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] concluded that these are two different courses and cannot be said to be equivalent.
In the specific opinion of this Court, the approach of the Expert Committee has been total casual, unreasonable and illogical. There is nothing in the report which can be termed to be an opinion of the Experts.
11. This Court is not oblivious of the position of law which lays down that the Courts cannot substitute its view in place of an Expert Committee opinion and cannot acquire the role of an expert while dealing with the matters of specialization. But then, this Court cannot also ignore such Expert Committee report wherein there is no application of mind and the same is, on the face of it, totally fallacious and based on no material whatsoever. A bare perusal of the so called Expert Committee Report as placed on record in the present matter, makes it clear that the Committee has not taken any effort even to compare the curriculum of both the degree courses. Further, the Committee has not called for any opinion/clarification from the University issuing the same, or from any authorised agency, regarding the said two degree courses.
Further, in the opinion of this Court, the Expert Committee report even seems to be misconceived as, while comparing the subject codes, it has ignored the common subject codes of both the degree courses and highlighted only the subject codes which were different. A bare perusal of mark-list of the petitioners as placed on record, specifies that almost 7 of the subject codes i.e., PGS 501 to PGS 506 and STAT 501 are the subjects totally identical to that of the degree in Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry. Further, the subject codes SWC 560 and SWC 511 are (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (9 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] also the same subjects with codes SSC 560 and SSC 502. Meaning thereby, the similar subject codes in both the degree courses have evidently been ignored by the Expert Committee. Although this Court is not required to act as an expert but then, the facts which are clear and evident on the face of it, cannot also be ignored and that too, when the issue pertains to the candidates who, after having qualified the written examination as well as the interview and having been selected, are being deprived of appointment of which they are otherwise legally entitled to.
It would be relevant to mention here that this Court entered into the comparison of the subjects of the degree course of the petitioners and that of M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry (as relied upon by the Expert Committee) on basis of the mark-list of one incumbent Mr. Hanuman Singh Gurjar [possessing the degree in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry], as placed on record by learned counsel for the respondent RPSC.
12. This Court derives its conclusion also from the fact that as per the Schedule to the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules of 1978'), the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry) earlier, was -
"Atleast II Class M.Sc. Chemistry or Asso. I.A.R.I. (Agriculture Chemistry or equivalent qualification".
The same was subsequently amended and as of now, the requisite qualification for Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry) is -
(Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (10 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] "IInd Class M.Sc. (Agriculture) Chemistry/Soil Science of a University established by law in India".
Meaning thereby, the specific qualification in Chemistry as prescribed earlier, has now been amended and the qualification of M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Soil Science has also been added. The same clearly implies that the degree in M.Sc.(Agriculture) Soil Science is a degree equivalent to M.Sc. (Agriculture) Chemistry. Had the intention been to prescribe the M.Sc. degree in any specific branch of Soil Science only, it would have been prescribed in the said manner. But the qualification prescribed in the Rules is simplicitor M.Sc. (Ag) Chemistry/Soil Science. No addition, alteration or filtration to the said prescribed qualification can be permitted by any agency, may it be the recruiting agency itself. The recruiting agency is also under an obligation to strictly abide by the conditions/qualifications as prescribed in the statue and cannot of its own, amend, alter or add anything to the said statutory provisions.
13. In view of above observation and analysis, this Court is of the clear view that the qualification of M.Sc. (Ag) Soil Science -Soil and Water Conservation as possessed by the petitioners is equivalent to the qualification of M.Sc.(Ag) Chemistry/Soil Science prescribed vide advertisement dated 13.04.2018, being in conformity with Section IV of the Schedule to the Rules of 1978.
14. In view of above conclusion, the writ petitions as preferred by the petitioners deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to verify the documents of the petitioners and after verification of the same, if not found ineligible because of any other aspect, offer appointment to them (Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25311] (11 of 11) [CW-17948/2023] on the post of Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry). The complete process be completed by the respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order.
15. The stay petitions and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J Vij/-
(Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)