Bombay High Court
Ravindra Ambadas Pansare vs The City And Industrial ... on 1 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
6502.2014WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6502 OF 2014
Ravindra s/o Ambadas Pansare,
Age: 37 Years, Occu: Self employed,
R/o. Rashin, Tq. Karjat,
Dist. Ahmednagar PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.,
CIDCO Bhavan, C.B.D. Belapur,
Navi Mumbai - 411 614
Through its Managing Director
2] The Member Secretary of Selection
Committee, The City and Industrial
Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd., CIDCO Bhavan,
C.B.D. Belapur,
Navi Mumbai-411 614.
3] Savitribai Phule Pune University
Ghanesh Khind, Pune-411 007
Through its Registrar RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. N.V.Gaware,Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Respondent No.3 - served.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
DATE: 01.04.2016.
6502.2014WP.odt
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
1] This Writ Petition is filed with
following prayers:
B) Hold and declare that, inaction on
the part of Respondent No.1 and 2 in
not conducting the interview of the
petitioner on the scheduled date for
the post of Assistant Public
Relation Officer in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 05.03.2014,
published in 'Daily Loksatta' is
illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Article 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, hence liable
to be quashed and set aside and for
that purpose issue necessary orders.
C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of writ of
mandamus directing the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and to conduct the
interview of the petitioner and to
undertake further process of
selection of the post of Assistant
Public Relation Officer in pursuance
6502.2014WP.odt
to the advertisement dated
05.03.2014, published in 'Daily
Loksatta' and for that purpose issue
necessary orders.
2] It is the case of the petitioner
that, on 05.03.2014, respondent No. 1 issued
an advertisement in 'Daily Loksatta' for
recruitment of various posts, including one
post of Assistant Public Relation Officer.
The said post was reserved for the candidate
belonging to VJNT. It is submitted that, as
per the said advertisement, applications for
various posts were invited from the aspiring
and eligible candidates on or before
31.03.2014. The instructions and guidelines
to the candidates were uploaded on the
official website of respondent No.1. The
said information disclosed that, educational
qualification for the post of Assistant
Public Relation Officer is degree in
Journalism with Mass Communication from the
recognized University with minimum one year
6502.2014WP.odt
experience in Public Relation. As per the
advertisement, the petitioner was / is
possessing necessary qualification.
3] It is further the case of the
petitioner that the interview call letters
were issued in favour of the candidates only
after detailed scrutiny and being satisfied
with the credentials of the candidates. It is
submitted that the candidates, who were
called for interview, were complying with the
necessary eligibility criteria, and
therefore, they were invited for the
interview. Accordingly, on 22.07.2014, the
petitioner had remained present in the office
of respondent No.1 at about 9.00 a.m. for the
interview along with necessary relevant
documents. It is submitted that, the
petitioner signed the attendance sheet and
register maintained for the verification of
original documents. Therefore, it is crystal
clear that, the petitioner remained present
6502.2014WP.odt
for the interview at the right time.
Thereafter, the original documents of the
petitioner regarding qualification,
experience, age, caste validity certificate,
school leaving certificate and other
documents were verified.
4]
It is submitted that, after due
verification, the petitioner was asked to
remain in the office till his turn would come
for the interview. It is submitted that, the
petitioner was called for the interview
before respondent No.2 at 2.30 p.m. on the
said day. It is submitted that, the
petitioner appeared before respondent No.2
Committee and respondent No.2 Committee was
interviewing him. In the midst of interview,
the Chairman of the Selection Committee
raised the query to the petitioner regarding
his educational qualification as regards
Journalism. It is submitted that, the
petitioner satisfied said query by responding
6502.2014WP.odt
that, he has completed Master's degree in
'Mass Relations' from the C.S.R.D.
Ahmednagar, affiliated and duly approved by
the University of Pune. It was also informed
that, the University of Pune has recognized
the said master's degree course of two years
in journalism. It was also informed that,
the nomenclature of the said course may be
different, but the petitioner is eligible to
be considered for the post of Assistant
Public Relation Officer. However, the
Chairman of the Selection Committee abruptly
stopped the interview of the petitioner and
refused to take / complete the interview of
the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to
leave the premises without conducting further
interview. The petitioner was really
astonished and shocked by the behaviour of
the Chairman of the Selection Committee of
respondent No.1, as the petitioner ought to
have been interviewed. Moreover, the
6502.2014WP.odt
petitioner was asked to leave the office in
the midst of interview only within 3 to 4
minutes. The petitioner was orally informed
that, he was not eligible to be considered
for the post of Assistant Public Relation
Officer and stood disqualified for want of
necessary educational qualification.
5] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner further submits that
respondent No.2 Committee acted in unfair
manner and though, the petitioner was
eligible, he was not permitted to participate
in the further process of selection. It is
further submitted that, 'Master of Mass
Relation' and 'Master of Mass Communication'
Courses are one and the same with different
nomenclatures. Their curriculum and subjects
are the same. The master's degree is
conferred after one year degree course in the
Journalism. It is submitted that, the
selection process conducted by respondent
6502.2014WP.odt
No.2 was not fair and was bias and
predetermined to select candidate of the
choice of the Committee. It is submitted
that, without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner to defend him, straightway he has
been held to be not eligible for the said
post. It is submitted that, the petitioner
recently had appeared for the interview for
the post of Public Relation Officer with
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Co. Ltd. [MSEDCL] and based on the same
educational qualification, he was permitted
to participate in the selection process.
Accordingly, he was selected for the said
post as found to be eligible, placed in the
wait list and the selection letter was issued
in his favour on 9th February, 2011 by MSEDCL.
It is submitted that, the petitioner on 24th
July, 2014, submitted detailed representation
to respondent No.1 ventilating his grievance
regarding his disqualification for the post
6502.2014WP.odt
of Assistant Public Relation Officer.
However, the respondents have failed to
consider the said representation and no
action whatsoever has been initiated.
6] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that, Master of Mass
Relations is a Master's Degree Course
conducted by CSRD and is affiliated to Pune
University. The said course is for two years
of Master's Degree and during the said
period, almost 10 subjects are covered. At
the cost of repetition, he submits that, the
Master's degree in 'Mass Relations' and
Master's Degree in 'Mass Communication' are
one and the same and moreover equivalent
save and except the difference in the
nomenclature.
7] Pursuant to the notices issued to
the respondents, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed
affidavit-in-reply. It is submitted that the
6502.2014WP.odt
claim of the petitioner that, 'Master of Mass
Relation' and 'Master of Mass Communication'
are one and the same courses with different
nomenclatures is not factually correct and
thus not acceptable to respondent Nos.1 and
2. The requirement as per the advertisement
was of a degree of a recognized University in
Journalism / Mass communication and not of
Mass Relations. As the qualifications
possessed by the petitioner were not
answering the qualification prescribed under
the advertisement, he was not considered
eligible, so as to allow him to participate
in the selection process. It is submitted
that, 11 candidates were shortlisted for
interview, who were prima facie found
eligible. Confusion that has occurred in
respect of the petitioner is because the
petitioner had mentioned the subjects of the
degree, which were suited to the
qualification prescribed in the
6502.2014WP.odt
advertisement. As a matter of fact, the
certificate merely states 'Master of Mass
Relations' and it nowhere mentions 'PR,
Journalism, Communication' as scribed by the
petitioner. If the degree possessed by the
petitioner was of Master of Mass Relation,
there was no justification to make a mention
of some of the subjects of the degree course.
As a matter of fact, there were in all 6
subjects in the said degree course i.e.
Master of Mass Relations, however, petitioner
has mentioned 'PR, Journalism,
Communication', which in fact do not figure
as it is even in the mark-sheet at Page-30 of
the Paper Book. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 got
misled initially, however, at the time of
interview the Selection Committee noticed
that, the degree possessed by the petitioner
is different and distinct one than the one
prescribed under the advertisement. Had the
petitioner been fair, he would have
6502.2014WP.odt
mentioned all the subjects, if at all those
were to be mentioned by him and mere mention
of 'PR, Journalism & Communication' is indeed
an attempt to mislead respondent nos. 1 and
2, which in terms of clause 7 & 8 of the
advertisement entailed in disqualification.
Accordingly, the petitioner has been rendered
disqualified on account of attempting to
mislead respondent nos. 1 and 2 by
unnecessarily mentioning the subjects at the
degree level, while describing the degree he
possessed.
8] It is submitted that, even
considering the subjects taught for the
course of Master of Mass Relations, it would
be abundantly clear that, those are quite
different than those are taught while
prosecuting the degree course of 'Master of
Communication'. It is further submitted that,
on account of not possessing the required
qualification prescribed as per the
6502.2014WP.odt
advertisement, the Selection Committee felt
it appropriate not to interview the
petitioner, after the Interview Committee
sought explanation from the petitioner as to
the degree he possessed. It is submitted
that, the Interview Committee evaluated the
performance of the eligible candidates on the
basis of 5 parameters viz (a) qualifications,
(b) experience, (c) general awareness, (d)
personality and (e) analytical ability and
concluded the selection process. The
Interview Committee rightly decided not to
permit the petitioner to participate in the
selection process, upon giving him an
opportunity to explain as to how he answers
the qualifications prescribed in the
advertisement. No fault, therefore, can be
found with the said decision of the Interview
Committee. It is submitted that, having
lacked the basic qualification prescribed in
the advertisement, the petitioner was rightly
6502.2014WP.odt
eliminated from the selection process and the
said decision cannot be faulted with.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have concluded the
selection process and the results have
already been declared on the official website
on 28th July, 2014. The selection has been
made purely on the basis of merit as
evaluated by the Interview Committee and the
selected candidate has also joined as
Assistant Public Relation Officer.
9] We have given thoughtful
consideration to the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their able
assistance, perused the grounds taken in the
Petition, annexures thereto, reply filed by
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the affidavit-
in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Upon
careful perusal of the copy of the
advertisement issued by respondent nos.1 and
6502.2014WP.odt
2 (at Exhibit-B Page-20), for the post of
Assistant Public Relation Officer, the
educational qualification is mentioned as
under:
"Degree of a recognised university
with degree in Journalism / mass
communication".
The petitioner possesses degree in 'Mass
Relations' from the University of Pune.
Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess
exact qualification i.e. 'Mass Communication'
as mentioned in the advertisement. It is the
submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that, 'Master of Mass
Relation' and 'Master of Mass Communication'
courses are one and the same with different
nomenclatures, though the curriculum and
subjects are the same. The said Master's
degree is conferred after one year degree
course in the Journalism. Upon careful
6502.2014WP.odt
perusal of the copy of online application
filled up by the petitioner in clause 6, it
was mentioned against the column 'Principal
subjects offered', Social Psychology,
Journalism Public Relation & Advertising
Communication, etc. Upon careful perusal of
the statement of the marks issued by the
University of Pune, it is written 'Master of
Mass Relations'. It appears that, relying
upon the information given in online
application, the petitioner was called for
interview and during the course of
verification of the documents, it was found
that, the petitioner possesses 'Master of
Mass Relation' degree and not 'Master of Mass
Communication' as mentioned in the
advertisement.
10] The contentions raised in the
Petition by the petitioner gave rise to a
question whether the Court can decide a
particular educational qualification should
6502.2014WP.odt
or should not be accepted as equivalent to
the qualification prescribed by the
Authority? The Supreme Court in the case of
State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Lata Arun1,
after considering the ratio laid down in the
earlier pronouncements of the Supreme Court
of which reference is made in para 10 and 11
of the said judgment, held that, the
prescribed eligibility qualification for
admission to a course or for recruitment to
or promotion in service are matters to be
considered by the appropriate authority. It
is not for Courts to decide whether a
particular educational qualification should
or should not be accepted as equivalent to
the qualification prescribed by the
authority.
Yet in another authoritative
pronouncement in the case of Sanjay Kumar
Manjul Vs. Chairman, UPSC & others2, it is
1 AIR 2002 SC 2642
2 [2006] 8 SCC 42
6502.2014WP.odt
held that, the qualifications for recruitment
to a post are laid down in terms of the
statutory rules. The statutory authority is
entitled to frame the statutory rules laying
down the terms and conditions of service as
also the qualifications essential for holding
a particular post. It is only the authority
concerned which can take ultimate decision
therefor.
Yet in another Judgment in the case
of P.M. Latha and another Vs. State of Kerala
and others3 the Supreme Court while
considering the argument that, B.Ed.
qualification is a higher qualification than
TTC and therefore the BEd candidates should
be held to be eligible to compete for the
post, has held as under:
There is no force in the
argument that BEd qualification is a
higher qualification than TTC and
3 [2003] 3 SCC 541
6502.2014WP.odt
therefore the BEd candidates should
be held to be eligible to compete
for the post. On behalf of the
appellants it is pointed out that
Trained Teacher's Certificate is
given to teachers specially trained
to teach small children in primary
classes whereas for BEd degree the
training imparted is to teach
students of classes above primary.
BEd degree-holders, therefore,
cannot necessarily be held to be
holding qualification suitable for
appointment as teachers in primary
schools. Whether for a particular
post, the source of recruitment
should be from the candidates with
TTC qualification or BEd
qualification is a matter of
recruitment policy. There is
sufficient logic and justification
in the State prescribing
qualification for post of primary
teachers as only TTC and not BEd.
Whether BEd qualification can also
be prescribed for primary teachers
is a question to be considered by
the authorities concerned but the
6502.2014WP.odt
Court cannot consider BEd candidates
for the present vacancies
advertised, as eligible.
Yet in another Judgment in the case
of Prakash Chand Meena and others Vs. State
of Rajasthan and others4, while considering
the issue of equivalence of qualification,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that,
recruitment process must be completed as per
the terms and conditions in the advertisement
and as per Rules existing when the
recruitment process began.
11] In the present case, admittedly, the
petitioner has not challenged the
advertisement that, it omitted to mention
equivalent qualification 'Mass Relations' for
the post of Assistant Public Relation
Officer. The petitioner participated in the
selection process in pursuance of the
advertisement wherein qualification possessed
4 [2015] 8 SCC 484
6502.2014WP.odt
by the petitioner is not mentioned as the
requisite qualification for the post of
Assistant Public Relation Officer. The
Supreme Court while considering the similar
fact situation, as has arisen in the present
Petition, in the case of Prakash Chand Meena
and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others
[cited supra] in para 9 held thus:
9. The candidates who were aware
of the advertisement and did not
have the qualification of CPED also
had two options, either to apply
only for PTI Gr. II if they had the
necessary qualification for that
post or to challenge the
advertisement that it omitted to
mention equivalent or higher
qualification along with
qualification of CPED for the post
of PTI Gr. III. Having not
challenged the advertisement and
having applied for the other post,
they could not have subsequently
claimed or be granted eligibility on
the basis of equivalence clarified
6502.2014WP.odt
or declared subsequently by the
State Government. In the matter of
eligibility qualification, the
equivalent qualification must be
recognised as such in the
recruitment rules or government
order existing on or before the
initiation of recruitment process.
In the present case, this process
was initiated through advertisement
inviting application which did not
indicate that equivalent or higher
qualification holders were eligible
to apply nor were the equivalent
qualifications reflected in the
recruitment rules or government
orders of the relevant time.
12] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner was at pains to submit that,
the respondents allowed his participation in
selection process, the petitioner was called
for interview, and therefore, petitioner's
candidature should not have been rejected.
There is fallacy in the said argument
inasmuch as the petitioner was aware that,
6502.2014WP.odt
the qualification i.e. Master's Degree in
'Mass Relations' is not mentioned in the
advertisement for the post of Assistant
Public Relation Officer, and therefore, it is
not open for the petitioner to contend that,
he is entitled for equitable relief.
13]
While considering the principle of
equity and law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of P.M. Latha and another Vs. State
of Kerala and others [cited supra] in para 13
held thus:
13. Equity and law are twin
brothers and law should be applied
and interpreted equitably but equity
cannot override written or settled
law. The Division Bench forgot that
in extending relief on equity to BEd
candidates who were unqualified and
yet allowed to compete and seek
appointments contrary to the terms
of the advertisement, it is not
redressing the injustice caused to
the appellants who were TTC
6502.2014WP.odt
candidates and would have secured a
better position in the rank list to
get appointment against the
available vacancies, had BEd
candidates been excluded from the
selections. The impugned judgment
of the Division Bench is both
illegal, inequitable and patently
unjust. The TTC candidates before
us as appellants have been wrongly
deprived of due chance of selection
and appointment. The impugned
judgment of the Division Bench,
therefore, deserves to be set aside
and of the learned Single Judge
restored.
14] Therefore, in our considered view,
neither we can consider the prayer of the
petitioner to treat the qualification i.e.
'Master in Mass Relations' as equivalent to
the 'Master in Mass Communication', which is
mentioned in the advertisement, nor the
petitioner is entitled for any equitable
relief. Since we have reached to the
6502.2014WP.odt
conclusion as aforesaid, it is not necessary
for us to consider ancillary and incidental
issues raised in the Petition. Accordingly,
in the light of the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan and others Vs. Lata Arun [cited
supra], and other judgments referred herein
above, it is not for Courts to decide whether
a particular educational qualification should
or should not be accepted as equivalent to
the qualification prescribed by the
authority. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the
Petition, hence, Petition stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
