Chattisgarh High Court
Cashmir Kujur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 November, 2022
Page 1 of 12
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 1408 of 2012
Reserved on : 27.07.2022
Delivered on : 01.11.2022
Cashmir Kujur, S/o Late Shri Paulus Kujur, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Subham Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Higher Education
Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
2. University Grant Commission, Through its Secretary,
Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi.
3. Guru Ghasidas University, Through the Registrar, Koni, Bilaspur
(C.G.)
4. The Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur
(C.G.)
5. (Deleted) Dr. P.C. Jain, as per Hon'ble Court order dated
20.04.2022.
6. Dr. Jyoti Salfekar W/o Shri Triyambak Salfekar Aged About 66
Years R/o Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Aman Pandey,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
C.A.V. ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated
14.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 4/Guru
Ghasidas University (for short "the University") by which the
petitioner who was working as Lecturer (Management) has been
terminated on the count that the petitioner has not fulfilled
essential qualification and as per affidavit dated 24.05.2004
submitted by the petitioner that if any question with regard to
eligibility of the petitioner arises, the decision of the University
will be binding upon the petitioner. It has been further mentioned
in the order that the University has enquired about education
qualification of the petitioner from Association of Indian
University (for short "the AIU") & Andhra University from where
the petitioner has cleared Master of Human Resource
Management (MHRM) course and it has been informed that the
MHRM is not minimum qualification for Lecturer (Management).
As such, the University has sent show cause notice on
23.05.2011 and the reply to the said notice was found
unsatisfactory, therefore, services of the petitioner have been
terminated.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per
advertisement dated 26.06.2000 (Annexure P/2), the educational
qualification and experience required for appointment on the
post of Lecturer (Management) are as prescribed by the
University Grant Commission (UGC)/ All Indian Council for
Technical Education (AICTE)/State for teaching posts in
Humanities & Science disciplines i.e. good academic record with
atleast 55% marks at the Master's degree level in the relevant
subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a
foreign University. Desirable- Besides fulfilling the above
qualifications, candidate should have cleared the National
Eligibility Test for Lectures conducted by the UGC, CSIR or
similar tests accredited by the UGC.
3. The petitioner who is having degree of MHRM and NET cleared
in Labour Welfare and Industrial Relations/ Labour and Social
Welfare/ Human Resource Management and belongs to SC/ST
category applied for appointment on the post of Lecturer
(Management) and after due selection process initiated by the
University, he was appointed as Lecturer (Management).
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during
selection process, respondents No. 5 & 6 made a complaint on
23.04.2004 (Annexure P/4) to the Vice Chancellor of the
University i.e. His Excellency the Governor of State of
Chhattisgarh with regard to educational qualification of the
petitioner and the Executive Council has sought opinion from the
expert of the concerned subject (Dean) and after verifying the
educational qualification of the petitioner gave an opinion and
has recommended for appointment of the petitioner on the post
of Lecturer only thereafter, the petitioner was appointed for
probation period of two years and after completion of the
probation period, a certificate to that effect was issued in favour
of the petitioner on 05.04.2008 (Annexure P/10) and the
petitioner has been granted status of regular teaching faculty
member of the University.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in
pursuance of notice dated 23.05.2011, the petitioner has
submitted reply to the University, wherein, he has stated that the
other persons who are not having MBA still are taking classes
and for them no equivalence has been raised whereas in case of
the petitioner, objection has been raised. Learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that in the other University like
Puduchery Central University, the persons who are having
MHRM degree are taking classes of Management. He would
further submit that notice be kindly withdrawn.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has completed 7 years services and during probation
period, no doubt has been raised and after lapse of 7 years, his
services have been regularized, probation has been completed,
therefore, show cause notice issued by the petitioner may kindly
be withdrawn and also sought supply of vital documents and
time to give detailed reply to the shows cause notice issued to
the petitioner. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner have
been terminated vide order dated 14.07.2011, against that the
petitioner has preferred an appeal which has been rejected by
the University, therefore, he has filed present petition assailing
the order as aforestated.
6. Respondents No. 3 & 4/University have filed return mainly
contending that the petitioner has no requisite qualification for
appointment on the post of Lecturer (Management) and they
have sought clarification from the AIU wherein it has been
informed that Master's degree in Human Resource Management
obtained by the candidate is a recognized Postgraduate degree
in its own area of the specialization and may be accepted as
such. It has been further clarified that, if need be, the University
may kindly get in touch with the awarding university as
considering equivalence of a degree is a matter of academic
expertise, which can only be done by the awarding university,
therefore, they have sent a letter to Andhra University and in
response, the Andhra University has informed to the University
that two years Master of Human Resource Management
(M.H.R.M.) Degree awarded by Andhra University is not
equivalent with that of Master of Business Administration
(M.B.A.) Degree. However, the candidates of M.H.R.M. Degree
Course are eligible to teach some papers in M.B.A. Degree
Course.
7. It has been further contended that respondent No. 3 & 4 issued
show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.05.2011 (Annexure
P/11) directing the petitioner to submit reply reiterating the fact
that the University has sought clarification from Association of
Indian Universities regarding equivalence of MHRM with Human
Resource Management and MBA and the AIU vide letter dated
17.06.2008 informed that MHRM is not considered equivalent to
Master in Business Administration (MBA) degree in view of the
difference in course curriculum. The AIU further advised to get in
touch with the awarding university as consideration of
equivalence of a degree is an academic expertise which can
only be done by the awarding University. Thereafter, the
University has sent notice to the petitioner on 23.05.2011
directing him to clarify the issue raised in the notice within 7 days
failing which his services will be terminated. The petitioner has
submitted reply on 26.05.2011 which was not found satisfactory,
therefore, by impugned order 14.07.2011 (Annexure P/1), his
services have been terminated.
8. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner who has
preferred an appeal before the University on 14.07.2011, which
has been rejected by the University on 10.05.2013 (Annexure
P/15), therefore, the petitioner has amended the petition
challenging the order dated 10.05.2013 also.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order
passed by the University is without giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner which is against the law laid down by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court. He placed reliance upon judgment rendered
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avatar Singh Vs. Union of
India & others1 wherein it has been held that in case of
confirmed employee holding departmental enquiry would be
necessary before passing termination order on the ground of
suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
He would also refer to University of Mysore & another Vs.
C.D. Govinda Rao & another2 wherein it has been held that
equivalence is job of expert and in the instant case experts have
appointed the petitioner. He would further refer to State of
Rajasthan & others Vs. Lata Arun3 wherein it has been held
that the prescribed eligibility for admission to a course or for
recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be
considered by the appropriate authority. He would also refer to
Canara Bank & others Vs. Debasis Das & others 4, wherein it
has been held regarding violation of principles of natural justice
& also refer to the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Prashant Shukla Vs. State of Chhattisgarh5 wherein it
has been held that regular employee cannot be terminated
without holding departmental enquiry.
10. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4/University would
submit that the relief sought by the petitioner is not only
untenable in the eye of law but is also highly misconceived in
1 AIR 2016 SC 3598
2 AIR 19655 SC 491
3 (2002) 6 SCC 252
4 (2003) 4 SCC 557/AIR 2003 SC 2041
nature in as much as the fact that the petitioner was appointed
on 25.07.2004, it was clearly mentioned in the appointment
order that the service of the petitioner will be subjected to the
undertaking submitted in the affidavit and the appointment would
stand terminated if the information submitted by him is found
incorrect. The reason for the termination was recorded in the
termination order itself, therefore, the impugned order is legal,
justify and does not warrant any interference by this Court. In
support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered by this Court in State of Orissa Vs. Mamta Mohanti 6,
The State of Bihar Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad 7, Ganpath Singh
Gangaram Singh Vs. Gulbarga University8, Bhupendra Nath
Hazarika & another Vs. State of Assam & others 9, Swapan
Kumar Pal Vs. Samitabhar Chakraborty10 & State of Haryana
Vs. Haryana Veterninary & AHTDS Association.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
12. The only issue before this Court is to examine whether the
MHRM is equivalent to MBA or not, if yes, what is its effect?
13. 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 &
others11 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
6 (2011) 3 SCC 436
7 (2019) 13 SCC 250
8 (2014) 3 SCC 767
9 (2013) 2 SCC 516
10 (2001) 5 SCC 581
11 (2019) 2 SCC 404
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.
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."
14. From the abovestated legal position, it is for the University to
determine whether MHRM is equivalent to MBA or not and not
for this Court. So far as for determination of legal issue raised in
this petition from bare perusal of the documents annexed in this
petition, it is quite vivid that the MHRM course is two years
master's course which focuses strictly on Human Resource
Domain. It will give complete knowledge in human recruitment
strategies and evaluations whereas in MBA, it will give to choose
from a range of choice as marketing, finance, Human
Resources, Business Analytics, Production, etc., therefore, it
cannot be said that MHRM is equivalent to MBA.
15. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in North Delhi Municipal
Corporation Vs. Kavinder & others12, has examined the
eligibility conditions/criteria equivalence between qualifications
prescribed and those obtained by the candidate in allied subject
and also competent authority to determine equivalence scope of
judicial interference. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held at
paragraph 8 & 9 as under:-
"8. While assessing merits of the rival contentions,
we must at the outset have due regard to the basis
which has been adopted by the first respondent in
support of his contention that he fulfills the eligibility
requirements. The categoric position of the first
respondent is that during the course of the MBA
degree programme, he had studied the subjects of
Human Resource Management and Industrial
Relations and Labour Legislation. Having regard to
this position, the issue which falls for determination
is whether this would lead the Court to the
conclusion that the first respondent fulfills the
eligibility requirements. The eligibility requirements
stipulated in the advertisement are that the
12 (2021) 11 SCC 353
candidate must have a post graduate degree or
diploma in (i) Social Work; or (ii) Labour Welfare; or
(iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel
Management; or (v) in any other allied subject of a
recognized University/institution or equivalent.
9. The first respondent completed the MBA degree
programme from Maharshi Dayanand University,
Rohtak. The mark sheets which have been relied
upon by the first respondent indicate that during the
course of the second semester, he studied Human
Resource Management as a subject. In the fourth
semester, the first respondent had a course in
Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation.
Studying these two subjects would not lead to the
conclusion that the first respondent holds a post
graduate degree or diploma in the disciplines which
have been specifically spelt out in the
advertisement or in any allied subject. The MBA
degree cannot be regarded as allied to a post
graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour
Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel
Management. The recruitment was being made to
the service of the appellant. The advertisement did
not specifically provide how equivalence was to be
established between a postgraduate
degree/diploma in the subjects specified in the
advertisement and a postgraduate degree/diploma
in an allied subject. The appellant as an employer
was best suited to judge whether the degree of the
first respondent was in an allied subject. Unless
this assessment was perverse or contrary to the
requirements prescribed, the Tribunal had no
reason to interfere. We are of the view that the
Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that the
first respondent was qualified merely because he
studied two subjects as a part of his MBA degree
programme, namely, Human Resource
Management and Industrial Relations and Labour
Legislation. The High Court has simply affirmed the
view of the Tribunal."
16. Now coming to the facts of the case, the recruitment was being
made to the service of respondent No. 3. The advertisement
dated 26.06.2000 did not specifically provide how equivalence
was to be established between a postgraduate degree/diploma
in the subjects specified in the advertisement with MBA.
Respondents No. 3 & 4 being employer were best suited to
judge whether the degree of the petitioner was equivalent to
MBA or not and they have after collecting material from the
University, who has awarded the degree to the petitioner, have
held that MHRM is not equivalent to MBA. The petitioner is
unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the decision
making process of the University, which warrant any interference
by this Court, this Court has no reason to interfere in the
impugned order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) as there is no
illegality and perversity in the impugned order.
17. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner is being
now examined by this Court. It is not in dispute that the show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after obtaining the
reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has been
passed. From the facts on record, it is quite clear that it is not in
dispute that the petitioner is not having MBA degree which was
essential qualification and was having only MHRM. Only
relevancy of both the degree have to be looked into, as such, no
detailed enquiry is required considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering that no disputed
facts are required to be adjudicated.
18. In the present case, services of the petitioner have not been
terminated on the count that the petitioner has submitted false
information or any incorrect facts, but services of the petitioner
have been terminated on the count that MHRM is not
equivalence to MBA. Therefore, no detailed enquiry is required
to be conducted by respondent No. 3. Thus, the defence taken
by the petitioner that the detail enquiry is necessary before
terminating a permanent employee, is not applicable to the
present facts and circumstances of the case.
19. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it
cannot be said that the MHRM is equivalent to MBA whereas
essential qualification for appointment on the post of Lecturer
(Management) is MBA. Since the petitioner is not having
requisite qualification, he cannot be allowed to continue in the
service, as such, the impugned order dated 14.07.2011
(Annexure P/1) does not suffer from perversity or illegality which
warrants any interference by this Court.
20. 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
HEAD-NOTE
Master of Human Resource Management (MHRM) is not
equivalent to Master of Business Administration (MBA) and
determination of equivalence does not lie within domain of writ Court, it
is a matter for recruiting authority to determine.
ekuo lalk/ku dkslZ esa mikf/k] izca/ku dkslZ ds led{k ugha gksrh ,oa
led{krk fu/kkZfjr djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj U;k;ky; dk ugh vfirq fu;qfDrdrkZ
vf/kdkjh dh fo"k; oLrq gSA
