Gaurav Kiran vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7278 Chatt

                                                               Page 1 of 5

                                                                   NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPS No. 8086 of 2022

      Gaurav Kiran, S/o Shri Daihar Lal, aged about 28 years, R/o
      Radha Vihar, Krishna Nagar, Hanuman Nagar, Raipur, District-
      Raipur (C.G.)
                                                    ---- Petitioner
                             Versus
1.   State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, School Education
     Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
     District- Raipur (C.G.)
2.   Joint Director, Education-Division, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
     (C.G.)
                                                            Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate.

For State : Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas ORDER ON BOARD

05.12.2022

1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the memo dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 by which, it has been held that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on the post of Teacher as he does not fulfill the requisite qualification of graduation in the subject as B.Pharma.

2. The facts reflected from the record are that the respondents have issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Teacher, Lecturer etc. The petitioner has cleared the examination of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), diploma in Elementary Education and Bachelor of Pharmacy in which he has cleared Pharmaceutical Chemistry Physical, Pharmaceutical Chemistry Inorganic, Pharmaceutical Biology, Pharmaceutical Chemistry Organic-I, Pharmaceutical Chemistry Organic-II, Pharmaceutical Bio-chemistry, Pharmaceutical Microbiology

Medicinal Chemistry-I, Pharmacology-I, Medicinal Chemistry-II, Pharmacology-II, Pharmacognosy-II, Bio-Pharmaceutics, Medicinal Chemistry-III, Pharmacology-III, Pharmacology-III, Pharmacology-III, Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Medicinal Chemistry whereas the qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher (Science) is Graduation in Science. The respondents have called the petitioner for verification of the documents on 05.05.2022 and his candidature for appointment on the said post has been rejected vide Annexure P/1 for the reasons mentioned therein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since B.Pharma course possesses various subjects in Science, therefore, he is having the requisite qualification, as such, the rejection order Annexure P/1 is illegal and would pray for quashing of the same.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned order would submit that since the petitioner has not done Graduation in Science, therefore, he is not eligible to be appointed as Teacher, thus, the impugned order is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost satisfaction.

6. From perusal of recruitment rules namely Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational & Administrative Cadre), Recruitment Rules, 2019 and the Schedule made therein, it is quite vivid that the qualification for appointment on the post of teacher is Graduation in Science whereas the petitioner is B.Pharma, therefore, he does not fulfill the requisite qualification.

7. It is well settled legal position that the equivalence of the subject is no part of role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of prescribed qualification. It is also well settled that equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review. It is also well settled whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for recruiting

authority to determine. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & others 1 has held at paragraph 26 to 28 as under:-

"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre- suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.

27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy.

1 (2019) 2 SCC 404

Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.

28. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible."

8. From the above-stated legal position, it is for the respondent to determine whether B.Pharma is equivalent to Graduation in Science and not for this Court. It is quite vivid that the B.Pharma course is four years Graduation course which focuses strictly on Pharmaceutical. It may give complete knowledge in Pharmaceutical whereas in Graduation in Science, it consists of subject of Science like Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Geology, Botany, which is required to teach the students, therefore, it cannot be said that B. Pharma is equivalent to Graduation in Science.

9. It is well settled legal position that the equivalence between the eligibility conditions and allied is the subject matter which is within the domain of the competent authority i.e. employer within the scope of judicial interference by the courts. The appointing authority is the competent authority to determine equivalence, which is not within the scope of judicial interference.

10. The petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the decision making process of the respondents warranting any interference by this Court. This Court has no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) as there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order.

11. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it

cannot be said that whether B.Pharma is equivalent to Graduation in Science, can be ascertained by this Court as it is prerogative of the employer i.e. the respondents to examine whether the qualification is equivalence or not, as such, the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) does not suffer from any perversity or illegality which warrants any interference by this Court.

12. In view of the above, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun .