Bombay High Court
Pallavi Sadashiv Bande vs Government Of India And Others on 2 March, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
8030.2015WP+.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8030 OF 2015
Pallavi d/o. Sadashiv Bande,
Age 29 Years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Plot No.27, Lane No.9,
Durgamata Colony, Nyay Nagar,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] Government of India,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
New Delhi.
2] Union Bank of India,
[Government of India undertaking],
Through its General Manager [HR],
Union Bank Bhavan, 239,
Vidhan Bhavan Marg., Mumbai - 21.
3] Institute of Banking Personnel Selection,
Through its Director,
IBPS House, 90 Feet D.P. Road,
Near Thakur Poltechnic,
Off. Western Express Highway,
P.B.No. 8587, Kandivali [East],
Mumbai - 400 101. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.B.Deshpande, ASG, for Respondent No.1
Mr. S.V.Natu, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. P.K.Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8892 OF 2015
Sachin s/o. Santaram Thenge,
Age 25 Years, Occ. Education,
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2016 00:02:30 :::
8030.2015WP+.odt
2
R/o. Waregaon, Tal. Phulambri,
District Aurangabad. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] Government of India,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
New Delhi.
2] Union Bank of India,
[Government of India undertaking],
Through its General Manager [HR],
Union Bank Bhavan, 239,
Vidhan Bhavan Marg., Mumbai - 21.
3] Institute of Banking Personnel Selection,
Through its Director,
IBPS House, 90 Feet D.P. Road,
Near Thakur Poltechnic,
Off. Western Express Highway,
P.B.No. 8587, Kandivali [East],
Mumbai - 400 101. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.B.Deshpande, ASG, for Respondent No.1
Mr. S.V.Natu, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. P.K.Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8415 OF 2015
Chandrakant s/o. Vasudeo Dhakane,
Age 23 Years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Bavi, Post Yellamb,
Tq. Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
New Delhi.
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2016 00:02:30 :::
8030.2015WP+.odt
3
[Copy to be served on Standing
Counsel, UOI, High Court of
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad]
2] Central Bank of India,
Through its General Manager [HRD],
Central Office Chander Mukhi
Building, 17th Floor, Nariman
Point, Mumbai-400 021.
3] Institute of Banking Personal Selection,
Through its Director,
IBPS House, 90 Feet D.P. Road,
Near Thakur Poltechnic,
Off. Western Express Highway,
P.B.No. 8587, Kandivali [East],
Mumbai - 400 101. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. R.B.Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. S.V.Warad, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. P.K.Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8702 OF 2015
Yogesh s/o. Omprakash Ghan,
Age 26 Years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Venkatesh Nagar, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
New Delhi.
[Copy to be served on Standing
Counsel, UOI, High Court of
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad]
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2016 00:02:30 :::
8030.2015WP+.odt
4
2] Union Bank of India,
Through its General Manager [HR],
Central Office, "Union Bank Bhawan",
239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg.,
Mumbai - 400 021.
3] Institute of Banking Personal Selection,
Through its Director,
IBPS House, 90 Feet D.P. Road,
Near Thakur Poltechnic,
Off. Western Express Highway,
P.B.No. 8587, Kandivali [East],
Mumbai - 400 101. RESPONDENTS
ig ...
Mr. A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A.G.Talhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. S.V.Natu, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. P.K.Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8937 OF 2015
Sopan s/o. Ramchandra Devkar,
Age 29 Years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Bharudkheda, Post Mandwe,
Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
New Delhi.
[Copy to be served on Standing
Counsel, UOI, High Court of
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad]
2] Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Through its General Manager [HRD],
Regional Office, Aman Chambers,
Veer Sawarkar Marg., Prabhadevi,
Mumbai - 400 025.
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2016 00:02:30 :::
8030.2015WP+.odt
5
3] Institute of Banking Personal Selection,
Through its Director,
IBPS House, 90 Feet D.P. Road,
Near Thakur Poltechnic,
Off. Western Express Highway,
P.B.No. 8587, Kandivali [East],
Mumbai - 400 101. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. D.G.Nagode, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. P.B.Paithankar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. P.K.Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...
ig CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
P.R.BORA, JJ.
Reserved on : 17.02.2016
Pronounced on: 02.03.2016
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
1] All these Writ Petitions raise similar issues and
having almost similar facts claiming similar reliefs are being
heard and disposed of by common Judgment.
In Writ Petition No.8030/2015, direction is
sought to the respondent no. 2 to consider qualification of
the petitioner as equivalent to the qualification mentioned
in the Notification issued by the respondent no. 3. There is
also challenge to the impugned letter / order dated 27th
May, 2015, issued by respondent no. 2, with further prayer
seeking direction to the respondent no. 2 to allow the
petitioner to complete her training and thereafter issue
8030.2015WP+.odt
consequential orders. In Writ Petition No.8892/2015,
similar reliefs are claimed except the date of impugned
order / letter is mentioned as 27th June, 2015.
In Writ Petition No. 8937/2015, Writ Petition No.
8702/2015 and Writ Petition No.8415/2015, the petitioners
have taken exception to the letter / order dated 3rd June,
2015, 27th June, 2015 and 9th July, 2015, respectively. It is
further prayed that, respondent no. 2 may be directed to
consider the qualification possessed by the petitioners as
equivalent to the qualification mentioned in the Notification
/ Advertisement issued by the respondent no. 2 for the
selection on the post of Agricultural Field Officers.
2] In all these Petitions, the respective petitioners
have completed B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-Technology] degree
course from various Universities. There is no dispute that,
all the petitioners possessed said qualification, and to that
effect, the concerned University has conferred degree on
the respective petitioners.
3] It is the case of the petitioners that, respondent
no. 3 published an advertisement on 18.11.2013 for
recruitment of the specialist Officers in the organizations
8030.2015WP+.odt
wherein the respondent Banks are incorporated. An
advertisement was issued for the post of Agricultural Field
Officer [Scale-I] and eligibility criteria as mentioned for the
Agricultural Field Officer [Scale-I] is 4 years degree
[graduation] in Agriculture / Horticulture / Animal
Husbandry / Veterinary Science / Diary Science / Agri.
Engineering / Fishery Science / Pisciculture / Agri. Marketing
Forestry.
and Cooperation / Co-operation and Banking / Agro-
Some of the petitioners belong to reserved
category and to that effect, they have placed on record
copy of validity certificates. In pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement, respective petitioners submitted their online
applications for the post of Agricultural Field Officer [Scale-
I], and according to them, they were found eligible for the
said post. The petitioners deposited requisite fees. They
appeared for the examination, and according to them, they
were declared successful for the post of Agricultural Field
Officer [Scale-I]. The petitioners were called for interview
on various dates.
4] It is the case of the petitioners that, at the time
of interview, the concerned Authority has verified all
original documents of the petitioners and found that, the
8030.2015WP+.odt
petitioners are eligible, and therefore, they were
interviewed. The petitioners received letters from the
respondent no. 2 stating therein that, they have been
selected. They also received offer letter of appointment in
the service of different respondent banks, as Agricultural
Filed Officer [Scale-I], in reserved categories from which the
petitioners belong.
5]
It is further the case of the petitioners that,
after receiving letter of appointment, the petitioners had
reported at reporting Centre at Ahmedabad, and other
places mentioned in said letters, and executed the bond, as
well as Bank Officers had verified all the original documents
relating to the educational qualifications of the petitioners.
The petitioners were called for medical examination; they
were declared fit for the said post. Thereafter, the
petitioners received letters by which they were directed to
report for mandatory induction training for the post of
Agricultural Field Officer [Scale-I] at various Banks, Staff
Training Centres for undergoing training.
6] It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.8030/2015 that, on 27th May, 2015, the petitioner
received e-mail at about 6.59 p.m. and along with that,
8030.2015WP+.odt
letter dated 27th May, 2015, is posted on the e-mail address
of the petitioner, informing that, letter of appointment
issued in favour of petitioner is withdrawn, on the ground
that, qualification / degree possessed by the petitioner does
not find mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore, the
appointment letter issued in favour of petitioner came to be
withdrawn.
It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.8892/2015 that, on 27th June, 2015, the petitioner
received communication, informing that, letter of
appointment issued in favour of petitioner is withdrawn, on
the ground that, qualification / degree possessed by the
petitioner is not mentioned in the advertisement, and
therefore, the letter of appointment issued in favour of
petitioner came to be withdrawn.
It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.8415/2015 that, on 9th July, 2015, the petitioner received
communication, informing that, letter of appointment
issued in favour of petitioner is withdrawn, on the ground
that, qualification / degree possessed by the petitioner is
not mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore, the
8030.2015WP+.odt
appointment issued in favour of petitioner came to be
withdrawn.
It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.8702/2015 that, on 27th June, 2015, the petitioner
received communication, informing that, letter of
appointment issued in favour of petitioner is withdrawn, on
the ground that, qualification / degree possessed by the
petitioner has not been mentioned in the advertisement.
It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.8937/2015 that, on 3rd June, 2015, the petitioner
received communication, informing that, letter of
appointment issued in favour of petitioner is withdrawn, on
the ground that, qualification / degree possessed by the
petitioner has not been mentioned in the advertisement.
7] The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.8030/2015 and 8892/2015
submits that, as per the Government Resolution dated 7th
September, 2011, issued by the State Government, thereby
holding that, B.Sc. [Agriculture Biotechnology], B.Sc.
[Agricultural Business Management], B.F.S.C., B.Sc.
[Horticulture] are equivalent to B.Sc. [Agri] / B.Tech.
8030.2015WP+.odt
[Agriculture Engineering] and such other degrees. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited our
attention to the Government Resolution dated 7th
September, 2011. It is further submitted that, the Director
[Education], Maharashtra Council of Agricultural Education
and Research has issued a letter dated 8th July, 2014, to the
Director, I.B.P.S. House, 90 Feet, D.P. Road, Kandivali [E],
Mumbai,
thereby stating that, B.Sc.
Biotechnology], B.Sc. [Agricultural Business Management],
[Agriculture
B.Sc. [Home Science], B.Tech. [Food Technology], B.F.S.C.,
B.Sc. [Horticulture] are equivalent to B.Sc. [Agri] / B.Tech.
[Agriculture Engineering] and such other degrees, and
therefore, requested to consider the selected candidates for
the appointment. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invited our attention to the contents of the said
letter, which is placed on record at Exhibit-I of the
compilation of the Writ Petition.
8] It is further submitted that, the Chancellor of
Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agricultural University,
Parbhani, has issued a letter to the Deputy Secretary of
Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Diary Development and
Fishery Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
8030.2015WP+.odt
Mumbai, thereby stating that, the Nationalized Banks are
not considering the degrees of B.Sc. [Agriculture
Biotechnology], Agricultural Business Management, etc. as
equivalent to other B.Sc. degree, and therefore, requested
to issue appropriate directions to the Banks. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners invited our attention
to the contents of the said letter, which is placed on record
at Exhibit-J. It is further submitted that, the petitioners and
other similarly placed candidates have filed application to
the respondent no. 2 on 06.07.2015, thereby stating that,
the B.Sc. [Agricultural Biotechnology] is an allied
specialization of Agriculture and is like B.Sc. [Agriculture]
and has also asked to consider the selected candidates,
who have obtained B.Sc. [Agriculture Biotechnology]
degree and to issue appointment orders. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners invited our attention
to the contents of the said application, which is placed on
record at Exhibit-K.
9] It is further submitted that, the Secretary and
Director General of Government of India, Department of
Agricultural Research and Education and Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi has
8030.2015WP+.odt
issued a letter dated 03.07.2015 to the respondent no. 3
thereby stating that, the B.Sc. [Agricultural Biotechnology]
is a four years degree programme like B.Sc. [Agriculture].
It is an allied specialization of Agriculture encompassing
several courses including crop production of field crops and
horticultural crops, plant physiology, plant genetics and
breeding, plant pathology and microbiology and organic
farming etc., and therefore, it was further requested to look
into the matter and issue necessary instructions to consider
the selected candidates for the appointment of Agricultural
Field Officers. But, in spite of the above communications
and letters, the respondents have not taken any action to
issue appointment order in favour of the petitioners. It is
further submitted that, the Union Bank itself has given
appointment to one candidate namely Vivek Hanumantrao
Karpe on the post of RDO/AFO in Jaunpur Region during the
year 2011 to 2014 and his degree was also B.Sc.
Agricultural Biotechnology and the said information has
been provided to one Yogesh Ghan by the Union Bank
under the Right to Information Act, and therefore, the
respondents are required to be directed to consider the
claim of the petitioners also. It is further submitted that,
the Secretary and Director General of Government of India,
8030.2015WP+.odt
Department of Agricultural Research and Education and
Indian Council of Agricultural Research has issued a letter
dated 27.11.2015, thereby requesting to the Joint Secretary
[Policy], Department of Agriculture Cooperation and
Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi to look into the matter
and favourably forward it to the Ministry of Finance stating
that, the four years degree in agriculture and allied
disciplines may be included in eligibility criteria for the
selection of Agricultural Field Officer in Banks.
10] It is further submitted that, pursuant to the
afore mentioned letter dated 27th November, 2015, the Joint
Secretary [Policy], Department of Agriculture Cooperation
and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, issued a letter to the
Minister of Finance, stating that, four year degree in
Agriculture and allied disciplines like Agricultural
Biotechnology, Food Science, Agriculture Business
Management, etc. may be included in the eligibility criteria
for the selection of Agriculture Field Officers in Banks,
besides other prescribed norms and further requested to
amend the criteria for selection of Agriculture Field Officers
8030.2015WP+.odt
in Banks. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
invited our attention to the contents of both letters dated
27.11.2015 and 30.11.2015.
11] It is further submitted that, the Under Secretary
of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance has issued a
letter to the Director, Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection, Mumbai, on 10.12.2015, thereby stating that, the
Department of Finance has no objection on the changes
suggested by the Ministry of Agriculture vide its letters
dated 18.11.2015 and 30.11.2015 on the subject and IBPS
may take up the matter with participating PSBs/IBA at its
level. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submit that, all the communications / copies of
letters, Government Resolution, which are referred in the
Petition and placed on record, shows that, the degree of
B.Sc. Agricultural [Bio-Technology] and the B.Sc. [Agri.] /
B.Tech. [Agriculture Engineering] are equivalent, and
therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the
claim of the petitioners.
12] It is further submitted that, the letter, by which
the appointments of the petitioners have been withdrawn,
is totally unjust, illegal, and after completing all the process
8030.2015WP+.odt
when the petitioners were about to join on 1st June, 2015
and in some cases, letter was issued for joining training
Centre. It is submitted that, only because respondent no. 2
had observed in the letter that, as per the Notification
published by the respondent no. 3 that, Bio-technology is
not equivalent with the said Notification, mentioned in the
qualifications for the post of the Agricultural Field Officer
[Scale-I], the impugned action of withdrawing appointment
letters have been taken by the respondents. Since the
petitioners have completed degree course i.e. B.Sc.
[Agriculture Bio-Technology] from various Universities, the
petitioners are complying the eligibility criteria for the said
posts, but merely because the word 'Bio-Technology' is not
mentioned in the Notification / advertisement, the order of
appointment of the petitioners are withdrawn, after
completing all formalities including undergoing training,
and therefore, the action on the part of the respondent no.
2 is unjust, arbitrary and illegal, and therefore, this Court
should invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction so as to grant
discretionary and equitable reliefs in favour of the
petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invited our attention to the various documents
placed on record and submits that, qualification / degree
8030.2015WP+.odt
possessed by the petitioners is equivalent to the
qualification mentioned in the advertisement, and
therefore, after selection of the petitioners and issuing
letter of appointment in their favour, the respondents
should not have withdrawn the appointment letters by
issuing communications to the petitioners.
13] The
ig learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invited our attention to the pleadings and
grounds taken in the Petitions, annexure thereto, and all
other documents placed on record and submits that, the
Petitions deserve consideration.
14] The learned counsel Mr. A.T. Jadhavar
appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.
8415/2015, 8702/2015 and 8937/2015 adopted arguments
advanced by Advocate Mr. S.S. Thombre appearing in other
connected two Writ Petitions and in addition, submits that,
during interviews all the documents and eligibility criteria of
the petitioners was verified by the respondent no. 3
Institute. All petitioners were declared eligible for the post
of Agricultural Field Officer. The petitioners successfully
cleared the said interviews. The candidature of the
8030.2015WP+.odt
petitioners have been selected and accepted on their
performance in online CWE and interview. The petitioners
were declared as successful candidates and as per the
preference given by the petitioners, the petitioners were
given allotment of the respondent Banks. As a matter of
fact, the appointments letter were issued to the petitioners,
they were asked to report at Training Centres. Thereafter,
when the petitioners were under preparation for medical
test and the training programme, suddenly without any
intimation they received communication from the
respondent banks that, their selection for the post of
Agricultural Field Officer / Rural Development Officer is
cancelled. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invited our attention to the various documents
showing that, B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-Technology] 4 years
degree course is equivalent to the B.Sc. [Agriculture]
course. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
pressed into service the Judgment of the Full Bench of the
Madras High Court in the case of Nadar Thanga Shubha
Laxman.A Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & another in Writ
Petition (MD) No.16181/2012 [along with connected Writ
Petition (MD) Nos.16051/2012, 16052/2012, 15660/2012,
16780/2012, 18793/2012 and Contempt Petition (MD) No.
8030.2015WP+.odt
637 of 2013], decided on 29th November, 2013 and submits
that, in the said Judgment the Madras High Court has taken
a view that, the equivalence certificate issued by the
Committee constituted by the Government declaring that
the degrees obtained from one University is equivalent to
the degrees obtained from yet another University cannot be
held to be only prospective in operation but will have its
effect and validity right from the date of issuance.
Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that, documents placed on record unequivocally
indicates that, the qualification possessed by the
petitioners is equivalent to B.Sc. Agri., and therefore,
the said equivalence relate back from acquiring same
qualification from the respective Universities. Therefore, he
submits that, Petitions deserves to be allowed.
15] The learned counsel appearing for respondents
bank relying upon the averments in the affidavit in replies
filed by the respective banks submits that, Petitions are not
maintainable and deserve to be dismissed only on the
ground that, having participated in the selection process
with knowledge about the specific educational qualification
8030.2015WP+.odt
prescribed for the concerned post, the petitioners are not
entitled either to challenge the criterion or seek
equivalence with the educational qualification prescribed.
The eligibility criteria like educational qualification, age etc.
are prescribed after discussions with the concerned
representatives of participating banks / organizations on
behalf of whom the respondent no. 3 conducts the test /
selection process as per job requirements and guidelines
prescribed by Government of India from time to time.
Accordingly, the respondent no. 3 gives detailed
advertisement / notification having prescribed eligibility
criteria, terms and conditions. Since the selection process
is an all India selection process, the participating banks /
organizations have to adhere to the terms and conditions
prescribed in the advertisement for the sake of uniformity.
The learned counsel invited our attention to the contents of
the annexure marked at Exhibit-R1 and submits that, in the
said clarification given by the Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India that, Bio-Technology, Home Science,
Food Processing and Forestry may not be treated as
requisite qualifications for the recruitment of the
Agricultural Field Officers under the Banking Sector. It is
submitted that, on 17.11.2014, a notification was issued by
8030.2015WP+.odt
the respondent no. 3, inviting eligible candidates to apply
for the post of Agricultural Field Officer Scale-I to be posted
in any of the Banks mentioned in the notification including
respondent no. 2 Bank. The notification specifically
prescribed the qualification for the post of AFO as '4 years
Degree [graduation] in Agriculture / Horticulture / Animal
Husbandry / Veterinary Science / Dairy Science / Agri.
Engineering / Fishery Science / Pisciculture / Agri. Marketing
and Cooperation / Co-operation and Banking / Agro-
Forestry.
16] It is submitted that, based on the declaration
made by the applicants, the process of selection was made
electronically in the matter of calling the candidates to
appear for the examination, the evaluation of the answer
papers and based on the result of the written examinations,
the candidates were called for interview by the respondent
no. 3, which is entrusted in recruiting the candidates. It is
submitted that, the petitioners were permitted to take
written test and they went through the selection process of
attending the interviews with the respondent no.3. Based
on the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test
and their performance in the interviews, respondent no. 3
8030.2015WP+.odt
informed the respondent no. 2 about the eligibility of
petitioners. Thereafter, offer of letter of appointment was
issued to the some of the petitioners and they were
directed to report for the mandatory induction training. It is
submitted that, the offer of appointments explicitly
provided that, it was provisional in nature and it was
subject to the submitting all the required documents in
support of eligibility by the petitioners and the same being
found in order. In terms of clause-7 of the provisional offer
of appointment, the petitioners were also issued with letter,
directing them to report for the mandatory induction
training for the post of Rural Development Officer, Grade-I.
It is submitted that, it was much later that, the documents
of the petitioners were received by the respective banks
from the respondent no. 3. Perusal of the same revealed
that, the petitioners have only obtained B.Tech in Bio-
Technology and not any of the qualifications which were
prescribed in online application form. In fact, in the online
application filled in by the petitioners, they have mentioned
that, qualification to be graduation in Agriculture.
Accordingly, the petitioners were informed that, they do
not fulfill requisite qualification prescribed in the
advertisement.
8030.2015WP+.odt
17] It is submitted that, the notification issued by
respondent no. 3 calling for applications for various posts in
22 Nationalized and Private Banks categorically mentioned
the qualification that was required to be possessed by the
interested candidates for the post of Agricultural Field
Officer, Grade-I. The online application also provided
options only
ig to choose the prescribed educational
qualification, whereas the petitioners gave false declaration
of holding degree in Agriculture, while the petitioners were
holding degree in Bio-Technology. Further, the action of
the Banks in rejecting the application of the petitioners
must be viewed in a wider sense that, if it had been open to
other Bio-Technology Graduates, many other more qualified
persons, apart from the petitioners, would also have
applied for the same post. The action of the Banks in
rejecting the application of the petitioners should,
therefore, be viewed considering the inequality and
discrimination that would arise with regard to various other
qualified persons holding Bio-Technology degree.
18] It is submitted that, the respondent no. 2 in
Writ Petition No.8030/2015 is a Central Government
undertaking and the recruitment of Agricultural Field Officer
8030.2015WP+.odt
being done on an all India basis, the petitioner cannot claim
equivalence of educational qualification on the basis of
Resolution issued by the State Government to that effect.
19] It is submitted that, in similar Writ Petition filed
before the High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Writ
Petition No.3829/2014 [Schin Narnaware Vs. IBPS, Union of
India & others], the basis of eligibility claimed by the
candidate, petitioner was equivalence granted by State of
Maharashtra to the two degrees i.e. B.Sc. in Food Science
and B.Sc. Agriculture. The Division Bench of the High Court
observed that, a Nationalized Bank could not have
considered the equivalence granted by a particular State to
the degrees secured by the candidates in the respective
State. Moreover, it was not the case of the petitioners that,
the University Grants Commission, the Central Body, had
granted equivalence to the degrees i.e. B.Tech Degree in
Food Science and B.Sc. in Agriculture. Since the
appointment of the petitioner was not being made in the
State Services, the petitioner could not have claimed
eligibility on the basis of Government Resolution dated
07.09.2011. The Court held that, even otherwise, it would
not be in a position to grant equivalence to the aforesaid
8030.2015WP+.odt
two degrees and it would also not be proper on its part to
interfere with the job requirements of respondents. The
learned counsel further invited our attention to the
Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
23670/2015 [Yogendra Singh Kushwaha Vs. Union of India
& others] and submits that, the candidate is required to
have educational qualification exactly as per the
advertisement in question for the concerned post which
cannot be equated or replaced with any other qualification
for any reason.
20] The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Central Bank of India in Writ Petition No.
8415/2015 adopted arguments advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the other Banks and the respondent
No. 3, and in addition to the same, he submits that,
petitioners are possessing qualification as B.Sc.
[Agricultural - Bio-Technology]. As a matter of fact the
prescribed qualification required for the Agricultural Field
Officers is B.Sc. Agri.. Therefore, since the petitioners were
not holding the qualification prescribed in the
advertisement, and therefore, selection of the petitioners
have already been cancelled.
8030.2015WP+.odt
21] The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - Oriental Bank of Commerce in Writ Petition
No.8937/2015 has also adopted the arguments advanced
by the counsel appearing for the other Banks and the
respondent No. 3 and in addition to that, relying upon the
averments in the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent no. 2
submits that, clause-12 of the appointment letter clearly
mentions that, in case it is detected at any stage, even
after appointment in the Bank, that candidates do not fulfill
the eligibility norms and/or that candidate has furnished
any incorrect / false information / certificates / documents
or have suppressed any material fact (s), offer of
appointment shall stand cancelled and services are liable to
be summarily terminated. The learned counsel further
submits that, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
Petition, since the respondent no. 4 is situated at Bhopal,
Local Head Office of the Bank and the other authorities of
the Bank are at Mumbai. The learned counsel also invited
our attention to the averments in the affidavit in reply and
submits that, Petition deserves to be dismissed.
22] The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 3 relying upon the averments in the
8030.2015WP+.odt
affidavit-in-reply submits that, respondent no. 3 is raising
the preliminary objections for maintainability of the Writ
Petitions, since the respondent no. 3 is not the 'State'
within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and
therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The
respondent no. 3 is a Public Trust, registered under the
provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and also
under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. It
is not a Statutory Body established under any specialized
legislation and therefore not amenable to the writ
jurisdiction. Respondent no. 3 is completely Autonomous
Body, which is specialized in conducting test / selection
process of personnel to participating banks and the other
organizations to fill the reported vacancies as per the
requirement of various participating banks / organizations.
It is submitted that, respondent no. 3 Institute is not having
any concerned with the Banks except to conduct online
examination and declared result. The working system of
institute cannot be termed as public function. In support of
the contention that, respondent no. 3 is not amenable to
writ jurisdiction, since is not the 'State' within meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no. 3 pressed into service the
8030.2015WP+.odt
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohan
Laxman Gamare Vs. IBPS in Writ Petition No.1042/2014, in
the case of Mr. Manoj Kumar Vs. IBPS in Writ Petition No.
2616/2014, and in the case of Mr.Arun Kumar Vs. IBPS in
Writ Petition No.2617/2014. It is submitted that, recently,
the Bombay High Court at Principal seat in the case of
Mohan Laxman Gamare Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection [IBPS] & another in Writ Petition [L] No.1042/2014
along with connection Writ Petitions, decided on 7th May,
2014, has taken a view that, Writ Petitions are not
maintainable against the present respondent no. 3. It is
submitted that, similar view is taken by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Delhi High Court, Manipur High Court,
Jharkhan High Court, Patna High Court and Punjab &
Haryana High Court in various Writ Petitions.
23] It is submitted that, in the Notification dated
18.11.2013, para 'L', Clause-7, it is clearly mentioned 'any
resulting dispute arising out of this advertisement including
the recruitment process shall be subject to the sole
jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Mumbai'. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 3, Petition ought to have been filed in the
8030.2015WP+.odt
Court situated at Mumbai. It is submitted that, at the time
of scrutiny and verification of documents of the petitioners,
it was noticed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Union Bank of
India that, the petitioners / candidates possessed the
educational qualification 'Bachelor of Science [Agricultural
Bio-technology] degree, and hence did not fulfill the
eligibility criteria laid down in advertisement / notification
educational
dated 18.11.2013 and did not fall within the prescribed
qualifications stipulated for the post of
'Agricultural Field Officer' also known as 'Rural
Development Officer' post in Union Bank of India. The
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 invited
our attention to the prescribed educational qualification for
the post of 'Agricultural Field Officer Scale-I' as given in the
advertisement and submits that, in the advertisement,
qualification possessed by the petitioners is not mentioned.
It is submitted that, petitioners have not challenged
advertisement / notification, on the contrary, it is the case
of the petitioners that, the qualification of B.Sc. Agri. Bio-
technology is considered equivalent to degree in
agriculture. It is submitted that, B.Sc. in Agricultural Bio-
technology is not eligible qualification for the post of
Regional Development Officer / Agriculture Field Officer. As
8030.2015WP+.odt
it is clear from the advertisement / notification dated
18.11.2013 that, participating organizations are in need of
such candidates, who have studied prescribed subjects in
the course of his / her degree [graduation] in Agriculture
Science. At the time of applying for CWE-SPL-III in the
online application form, there was option to mention
subject. But the petitioners had not filled up that
parameter
ig with appropriate available
candidates are required to select the qualification as
option. The
prescribed in the advertisement / notification. In the
present cases, the candidates have suppressed their actual
qualification. So, it was a deliberate effort on the part of
the petitioners that, though they do not possess prescribed
educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement
and yet they applied for the post of AFO Scale-I. It is
submitted that, It was clearly mentioned in the concerned
advertisement / notification that, the intending applicant
should ensure that, he / she fulfills the stipulated criteria
specified by the IBPS and follows the prescribed processes.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3
invited our attention to the eligibility criteria specified by
IBPS.
8030.2015WP+.odt
24] It is submitted that, the Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court in Judgment, delivered on 30th April,
2015 in Writ Petition No.44934/2013 [Gaurav Singh Vs.
Union of India & others] has held that, the candidate is
required to have educational qualification exactly as per
the advertisement in question for the concerned post,
which cannot be equated or replaced with any other
qualification
ig for any reason. It is
respondent no. 3 has no any role in the appointment
submitted that,
process, except conducting examinations as Test
Conducting Agency. It is submitted that, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of P.Mahendran & others Vs.
State of Karnataka1, held that, if a candidate applies to a
post in response to an advertisement issued by the
Commission in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, he /
she acquires a right to be considered for selection in
accordance with the existing Rules. This right cannot be
affected by amendment of any Rules unless the amending
Rule is retrospective in nature. Therefore, he submits that,
the selection process once set in motion has to be within
the terms and conditions of the advertisement, and
therefore, change in the qualification once prescribed is
1 [1990] 1 SCC 411
8030.2015WP+.odt
impermissible for alteration, unless notice is issued to all
the candidates and the rule is retrospective in nature. It is
submitted that, respondent no. 3 facilitates to select
suitable candidates as per the recruitment of participating
organizations. Merit listed eligible candidates are
provisionally allotted on merit cum preference basis to the
participating organizations, depending upon the vacancies
of employment.
notified by them to IBPS. That does not constitute an offer
In case it is detected at any stage of
recruitment process that the candidate does not satisfy the
eligibility criteria his / her candidature / chance in the
process stands forfeited. The allottee bank is the ultimate
authority to issue appointment letter to the candidate
subject to their terms and conditions and requirements.
The decision of the allottee bank will be final and binding on
the candidates. The respondent no. 3 has no role to play.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Lata Arun2, 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
2 AIR 2002 SC 2642
8030.2015WP+.odt
should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the
qualification prescribed by the authority.
25] It is submitted that, the allottee bank has got
every right / discretion to cancel the candidature of the
provisionally allotted candidates if he / she / they does / do
not have the specified / prescribed eligibility criteria. It is
submitted that, it is clearly mentioned in the concerned
notification / advertisement in para I [Allotment] that,
"Offer of appointment is solely decision of the Participating
Organizations and shall be final and binding. The
respondent no. 3 has no role in the said process. The
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 also
invited our attention to the Judgment of the Bombay High
Court, Bench at Nagpur, in the case of Sachin Narnaware
Vs. IBPS & Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition No.
3829/2014, wherein view is taken that, a candidate is
required to possess a B.Sc. Degree in Agriculture or
Agriculture Engineering. The petitioner therein admittedly
does not possess the said degree. The only basis for
claiming the eligibility is the equivalence granted by the
State of Maharashtra to the two degrees i.e. B.Tech Degree
in Food Science and the B.Sc. Degree in Agriculture. The
8030.2015WP+.odt
Court would not be in a position to grant equivalence to the
aforesaid two degrees and it would also not be proper on
the part of the Court to cause interference with the job
requirements of the respondent no.4 therein. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 3, no fault is found in the action of the
respondent Bank in rejecting the candidature of the
petitioners, and therefore, Writ Petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
26] It is submitted that, the Ministry of Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture & Co-operation [Policy Division],
Krushi Bhavan, New Delhi have clarified the definition of
Agriculture and Allied activities by letter dated 27th
September, 2013, wherein it was observed that, the Bio-
Technology Home Science, Food Processing and Forestry
may not be treated as requisite qualification for the
recruitment of Agriculture Field Officer under the Banking
Sector. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 3 invited our attention to the letter dated 27th
September, 2013, issued by Krushi Bhavan, New Delhi,
which is placed on record at Exhibit-R1 along with reply. It
is further submitted that, now the provisional allotment of
8030.2015WP+.odt
CWE-SPL-III as per Advertisement is over on 07.04.2014 and
displayed in the public domain [i.e. IBPS website] on
07.04.2014, for the post of 'Specialist Officers [AFO]'. The
reserved list has also been published and displayed on
31.03.2015. The next Common Recruitment Process of
CRP-SPL-IV is also completed on 06.04.2015. The issuance
of appointment letters of provisionally allotted candidates
are in progress / completed by the Participating Banks /
Organizations and the role of IBPS has become infructuous
as the selection process is already over. Hence, on this
ground itself the Writ Petitions deserves to be dismissed.
27] It is submitted that, the petitioners could not be
legally granted any relief and if relief is granted, it will be
open a PANDORA'S BOX and the entire selection process of
the thousands of deserving and law-abiding candidates
would also not be completed in time which would cause
great injustice to such deserving and successful candidates.
It is further submitted that, even the eligibility criteria like
age, qualification etc. are also prescribed after discussion
with the Participating Organizations and as per their
requirement / need and keeping in view the clarification
received from Under Secretary to Government of India,
8030.2015WP+.odt
Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture &
Cooperation [Policy Division], vide its letter bearing F.No.
02-02-2013-Policy dated 27.09.2013, clarifying the requisite
qualifications for recruitment of 'Agriculture Field Officers'
under the Banking Sector. It is submitted that, the
Secretary and Director General of Government of India,
Department of Agricultural Research, Ministry of
Agriculture, had issued a letter dated 03.07.2015 to
respondent no. 3 with a request to look into the matter and
issue necessary instructions in this regard. The aforesaid
letter dated 03.07.2015 was replied by IBPS vide its letter
No.2828 dated 07.07.2015, informing ICAR that, as the
matter is subjudice, we are not in a position to offer our
comments. It is submitted that, in response to a certain
query, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation [Policy
Division], Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India
clarified definition of Agriculture and allied activities as
under:
"C. The Bio-Technology, Home Science, Food
Processing and Forestry may not be treated as
requisite qualification for the recruitment of
Agriculture Field Officer under Banking Sector".
8030.2015WP+.odt
28] It is further submitted that, the petitioners are
not holding prescribed qualification for the post of
Agricultural Field Officer / Rural Development Officer as per
the advertisement. Therefore, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no. 3 submits that, Petitions
are devoid of any merit, and same may be dismissed.
29] We
ig have heard the learned counsel Mr.
S.S.Thombre and Mr. A.T.Jadhavar appearing for the
petitioners in respective Petitions, and the learned counsel
appearing for the respective respondents. With able
assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
perused the pleadings, and grounds taken in the Petitions,
annexure thereto, replies filed by the respective
respondents, and the Judgments of the High Court and the
Supreme Court cited across the bar by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties in support of their
contentions raised during the course of hearing.
30] In Writ Petition No.8030/2015, the petitioner
has placed on record copy of advertisement published by
the respondent no. 3 at Page 22 and 23, wherein 14th
December, 2013 was the date prescribed for calling online
applications of the candidates, who were desirous for
8030.2015WP+.odt
appointment on various posts mentioned in the said
advertisement. The petitioner filed online application for
the post of Agricultural Field Officer. In Writ Petition
No.8892/2015, the petitioner has placed on record copy of
advertisement at Exhibit-C Page 21 to 23, wherein the post
of Agricultural Field Officer [Scale-I] is shown at serial No. 2
in the said advertisement. Upon careful perusal of the
Agricultural
clause of the educational qualification for the post of
Field Officer [Scale-I], the educational
qualifications are mentioned as under:
4 year Degree (graduation) in Agriculture /
Horticulture / Animal Husbandry / Veterinary
Science / Dairy Science / Agri. Engineering / Fishery
Science / Pisciculture / Agri. Marketing &
Cooperation / Co-operation & Banking / Agro-
Forestry.
In Writ Petition Nos.8415/2015, 8702/2015 and
8937/2015, the petitioners have placed on record copies of
advertisements wherein for the post of Agricultural Field
Officer [Scale-I] the educational qualifications are the same,
which are mentioned herein above.
31] The bone of contention of the learned counsel
8030.2015WP+.odt
appearing for the petitioners, relying upon the various
documents placed on record is that, all the petitioners have
cleared B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-Technology] 4 years degree
course, and the same is equivalent to the B.Sc. Agri.
course. It is their contention that, relying upon the various
documents / copies of inter se communications between
the respondents and the various authorities of the State
Government and the Central Government, this Court should
treat the qualifications possessed by the petitioners
equivalent to the B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-Technology]. The
respondent no. 1 in Writ Petition No.8030/2015, along with
his reply has placed on record copy of letter dated 27th
September, 2013, at Exhibit-R1, which is written by Kamal
Jeet Singh, under Secretary to the Government of India to
Shri A.S.Bhattacharya, Director of Institute of Banking
Personnel Selection. It appears that, respondent had
sought opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of
Agriculture & Cooperation [Policy Division] by writing a
letter dated 12th June, 2013, seeking clarification on the
definition and Agriculture and Allied Activities. The
contents of letter dated 27th September, 2013, at Exhibit-
R1, and comments received thereon, reads thus:
8030.2015WP+.odt
F.NO. 02-02/2013-Policy
Ministry of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture & Cooperation
(Policy Division)
565, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi
Dated: 27th September, 2013
To,
Shri. A.S.Bhattacharya
Director,
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
IBPS House, Behind Thakur Polytechnic,
Kandivali [E], Mumbai - 400 101.
Maharashtra.
Subject:
ig Definition of Agriculture and Allied
Activities - Reg.
Please refer to your letter dated 12 June,
2013 seeking clarification on the definition of
Agriculture and Allied Activities.
The Comments of this Ministry are enclosed
as at Annexure.
Encl.: As above. Sd/-
(Kamal Jeet Singh)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
COMMENTS
i) Agriculture and allied sector, is defined as the
occupation and field of knowledge concerned
with cultivating land, raising of crops,
production of crops, harvesting, breeding and
raising livestock, fishery and production of
livestock, poultry and fish.
ii) On the other hand, biotechnology is an
8030.2015WP+.odt
independent evolving science; food -
processing is an offshoot activity of
agriculture; while agricultural marketing is an
integral part of agricultural development.
iii) The Bio-Technology, Home Science, Food
Processing and Forestry may not be treated
as requisite qualification for the recruitment
of Agriculture Field Officer under the Banking
Sector. However, the qualifications viz. Agro
ig - Forestry and Horticulture may be included
in the recruitment rule for A.F.O. besides the
qualification of Dairying, Fisheries and
Agriculture Engineering.
i) The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
need to take a view on activities to be funded
and promoted in which they would like the
candidate perform rather than getting guided
by the definition of agriculture and sector
which is evolving in nature.
32] Upon careful perusal of the contents of the
letter at Exhibit-R1 with comments received from under
Secretary to the Government of India in reply to the letter
written on 12th June, 2013, by the respondents to the said
authority, it is abundantly clear that, the afore-mentioned
Department of Government of India expressed opinion that,
the Bio-Technology, Home Science, Food Processing and
8030.2015WP+.odt
Forestry may not be treated as requisite qualification for
the recruitment of Agriculture Field Officer under the
Banking Sector. According to the respondents acting upon
the said opinion, which was received prior to the issuance
of the advertisement for the post of Agricultural Field
Officer, the qualification B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-Technology]
is not mentioned in the advertisement. Admittedly, B.Sc.
[Agricultural Bio-Technology] qualification is not mentioned
in the column of educational qualification for the post of
Agricultural Field Officer [Scale-I]. The petitioners, at the
time of filling online applications, were fully aware that,
B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-Technology], is not included under
the caption 'the educational qualification' in the
advertisement, for appointments on the post of Agricultural
Field Officer [Scale-I]. The respondents in their replies have
stated that, it is only after online selection process is over,
the respondents had opportunity to look into the
documents at the time of scrutiny, about educational
qualifications possessed by the respective candidates, who
applied online for the selection process, and examination
was also conducted on line.
33] The contentions raised in these Petitions by the
8030.2015WP+.odt
petitioners gave rise to a question that, whether the court
can decide a particular educational qualification should or
should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification
prescribed by the authority? As already observed, in the
present Petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners tried to persuade us to hold that, B.Sc.
[Agricultural Bio-Technology] is equivalent qualification to
the B.Sc. Agri. mentioned in the advertisement.
Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others
The
Vs. Lata Arun3, after considering the ratio laid down in the
earlier pronouncement 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 &
others4, it is held that, the qualifications for recruitment to a
3 AIR 2002 SC 2642
4 [2006] 8 SCC 42
8030.2015WP+.odt
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 others5 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
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
5 [2003] 3 SCC 541
8030.2015WP+.odt
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 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
others6, while considering the issue of equivalence of
qualification, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that,
recruitment process must be completed as per terms and
conditions in the advertisement and as per Rules existing
when the recruitment process began.
34] In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners
have not challenged the advertisement that, it omitted to
mention equivalent qualification B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-
Technology], for the post of Agricultural Field Officer [Scale-
I]. The petitioners participated in the selection process in
pursuance of the advertisement wherein qualification
possessed by the petitioners is not mentioned as prescribed
6 [2015] 8 SCC 484
8030.2015WP+.odt
qualification for the post of Agricultural Field Officer [Scale-
I]. The Supreme Court while considering the similar facts
situation as has arisen in the present Petitions, 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 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.
8030.2015WP+.odt
35] The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners were at pains to submit that, the respondents
allowed their participation in selection process, the
petitioners were selected, appointment letters were issued,
and they were sent for training, and therefore, on principle
of equity also the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs
claimed in the Petitions. There is fallacy in the said
argument inasmuch as the petitioners were aware that, the
qualification i.e. B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-Technology] is not
mentioned in the advertisement for the post of Agricultural
Field Officer, and therefore, it is not open for the petitioners
to contend that, they are entitled for equitable relief. On
the contrary, there is force in the arguments advanced by
the counsel appearing for the respective respondents that,
the other candidates, who possessed qualification like the
petitioners, if knew that, the B.Sc. [Agricultural Bio-
Technology] is going to be treated as equivalent
qualification to B.Sc. Agri., they might have participated in
selection process. There is also considerable force in the
argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents that, some of candidates, who possessed
exact qualification mentioned in the advertisement, to
some extent are deprived from their selection due to
8030.2015WP+.odt
selection of the petitioners on the post of Agricultural Field
Officer.
36] As already observed, the respondents had
opportunity to scrutinize the documents submitted by the
petitioners at the time of scrutiny after selection process
was over, as per the schedule of selection process given in
the advertisement.
ig As rightly contended by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent banks that, the
clause of offer of appointment letter provides that, even
after such letter is issued at any stage, said offer of
appointment can be cancelled in case it is noticed
subsequently that, there is breach of criterion / conditions
mentioned in the advertisement.
While considering the law and principle of
equity, 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
8030.2015WP+.odt
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 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.
37] Therefore, in our considered view, neither we
can consider the prayer of the petitioners to treat the
qualification possessed by them equivalent to 4 years
Degree [graduation] in Agriculture, which is mentioned in
the advertisement, nor the petitioners are entitled for
equitable relief. Since we have reached to the conclusion as
aforesaid, it is not necessary for us to consider ancillary and
incidental issues raised by the parties.
38] In the light of discussion in the foregoing
paragraphs, and 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
8030.2015WP+.odt
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 petitioners are not entitled for
the reliefs prayed in the Petitions, hence, Petitions stand
rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
[P.R.BORA]
JUDGE
[S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE
DDC
