Bombay High Court
Ms. Neelam Rama Kamble vs Thr Union Of India, Thr. Secty. ... on 24 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.5383.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 5283/2016
Ms. Neelam Rama Kamble
Aged about 25 years, occu: Nil
R/o House No. 3266, K-37
New Kailash Nagar, Manewada Road
Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur. ..PETITIONER
ig v e r s u s
1) The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Financial Services
(Ministry of Finance), 3rd floor,
Jeevandeep Building, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110 001.
2) The Director
Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection, IBPS House, 90 feet
D.P. Road, Near Thakur Polytechnic of Western Express
Highway, P.B.No. 8587, Kandiwali (East)
Mumbai- 400101.
3) The Assistant General Manager
Canara bank, Recruitment Cell
Human Resources Wing,
head Office, Jeevan Prakash Building
113/1, J.C. Road, Bangalore 560002 (Karnataka). ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri R.N.Ghughe, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.A.Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri C.S.Samudra, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shri A.T.Purohit, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...........................................................................................................................
wp.5383.16
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS .SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 24 November, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the
communication of the respondent no.3 - Assistant General Manager of the
Canara Bank, dated 29.6.2016, cancelling the provisional appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I and rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner on the ground of eligibility. The petitioner seeks
a direction against the respondent no.3 to issue the appointment order to
the petitioner.
3. In pursuance of an advertisement published by the respondent
no.3 through the respondent no.2, the Director, Institution of Banking
Personnel Selection, the petitioner applied for the post of Agricultural Field
Officer, Scale-I. As per the advertisement, an Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-
I was required to possess a four-year degree (Graduation ) in Agriculture/
Horticulture/Animal Husbandry/Veterinary Science/Dairy Science/
Agriculture Engineering/Fishery Science/Pisciculture/ Agri. Marketing &
Cooperation / Cooperation & Banking/ Agro Forestry. By a corrigendum
wp.5383.16
issued by the respondent no.2 on 16.1.2016, four degrees in following
disciplines were included in the educational qualification: (i) Forestry, (ii)
Agricultural Bio-technology, (iii) Food Science and, (iv) Agriculture Business
Management. According to the petitioner, the petitioner posseses a four-year
degree from a recognised University in Food Science (Food Technology) and,
therefore, the petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner was selected
and after verifying the necessary certificates, the petitioner was served with
an allotment letter of provisional appointment. When the petitioner went to
join on the post of Agriculture Field Officer, Scale-I in the respondent no.3
Canara Bank, the petitioner was informed vide impugned communication
dated 29.6.2016 that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as the
petitioner possesses the degree in Food Technology and not Food Science. The
petitioner has challenged the communication in the instant petition and has
sought the relief as aforesaid.
4. Shri R.N. Ghuge, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that though the degree awarded to the petitioner in the year 2011 by the
Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani is a degree in Food Technology,
the very same course for which the degree of Food Technology was granted
in favour of the petitioner, was a degree course meant for a degree in Food
Science till the year 2007-08. It is stated that the nomenclature of the same
degree course was Food Science till the year 2007-08 in the Agriculture
wp.5383.16
University, and from the year 2007-08 the nomenclature was changed to
Food Technology. It is stated that the said fact is clearly depicted from
Annexure P-1 wherein, the nomenclature of the degree in 'Food Science' was
changed as 'Food Technology' since the year 2007-08. It is stated that since
the petitioner was admitted to the course after the nomenclature was changed,
the petitioner has secured degree in Food Technology, which is indeed a
degree in Food Science as it was known earlier till the year 2006-07. It is
stated that the respondent no.2 has rightly included the degree in Food
Technology while prescribing the eligibility criteria for subsequent
recruitment processes. It is stated that it is apparent from the documents
annexed to the petition that the petitioner has the requisite qualification as
she possesses the degree in Food Science which is now termed as Food
Technology, after 2007-08. It is stated that the action on the part of the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 in cancelling the allotment letter issued in favour of
the petitioner is bad in law.
5. Shri Samudra, the learned learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 submitted that since the degree in Food Technology was neither included
in the advertisement nor the corrigendum, as the essential qualification, the
petitioner cannot claim that the degree in Food Technology should be
considered to be degree in Food Science.
6. Shri Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3
wp.5383.16
submitted that the Nagpur Bench would not have the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the writ petition as any dispute arising out of the
advertisement issued by the respondent no.2 including the recruitment
process, would be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Court situated in
Mumbai. It is stated that in the application form, the petitioner has mentioned
that the petitioner possesses a degree in Food Science though she possesses a
degree in Food Technology. It is stated that the petitioner has misled the
respondent nos.2 and 3 by mentioning so. It is stated that it would be within
the domain of the respondent no.3 to reject the application of the petitioner
and the decision of the respondent no.3 would be final and binding on the
petitioner. It is stated that when the qualifications are prescribed in an
advertisement, it would not be for the Court or the other authorities to
interpret whether a particular qualification could or could not have been
considered as a requisite qualification, while considering the eligibility of a
candidate.
7. We find, on a perusal of the advertisement and the corrigendum
issued thereto, that Food Science was one of the degrees that could have been
possessed by a candidate desirous of seeking appointment on the post of
Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I. The Marathwada Agriculture University that
had granted the degree in Food Technology to the petitioner was conducting
the degree course in Food Science since past several years. In the year
wp.5383.16
2006-07 the very degree course in Food Technology was termed as Food
Science and the nomenclature of the said course was changed to Food
Technology since 2007-08. As the petitioner was admitted to the course that
was earlier known as the degree course in Food Science, of which only the
nomenclature is changed, as could be seen from the information supplied by
the Marathwada Agriculture University, the petitioner knew that the petitioner
possesses a degree in Food Science which is known as a degree in Food
Technology. Rightly, the respondent no.2, for the very next recruitment
process, has included the degree in Food Technology as a qualifying degree
for appointment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I. We do not
find that the petitioner has misled either the respondent nos.2 or 3 by
mentioning in the application form that she possesses a degree in Food
Science. This is not a case where the petitioner is seeking a declaration that
the degree in Food Science is equivalent to a degree in Food Technology. It
is the case of the petitioner that degree in Food Technology and degree in
Food Science is one and the same degree and is known by two different
names during two different periods. The very same degree course was known
as a degree course in Food Science till the year 2006-07 and the same course is
known as a degree course in Food Technology from 2007-08. The respondents
have not disputed this position and have also not disputed the correctness of
the communication issued by the Marathwada Agriculture University
wp.5383.16
explaining that the nomenclature of the degree of Food Science was changed
from the academic session 2007-08 and the very same degree course is
known as a degree course in Food Technology. In the circumstances of the
case, the respondent no.3 committed a serious error in cancelling the
allotment letter issued in favour of the petitioner. While holding that the
action of the respondent no.3 is bad in law and while granting the prayers
made by the petitioner in the instant petition, we reject the objection raised
on behalf of the respondent no.3 that this Court would not have the
territorial jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in this writ petition as it
pertains to the recruitment process. The recruitment process was completed
and the petitioner was also served with an allotment letter. If the petitioner
was provisionally appointed, it would be a case, akin to a case of
cancellation of the appointment of an employee. We, therefore, overrule the
objection raised on behalf of the respondent no.3 to the jurisdiction of this
Bench to entertain and decide the writ petition. We hereby hold that the
petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer,
Scale-I and the respondent no.3 had wrongly cancelled the allotment letter
and refused to permit the petitioner to work as an Agriculture Field Officer,
Scale-I vide communication dated 29.6.2016.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3
wp.5383.16
is directed to issue an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner within
two weeks.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
