Ratan Singh vs Dr. M.M.M. Beg And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1021 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 27th August 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1864/2001 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

2. The petitioner got his B.Sc. degree in Agriculture with Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science in the year 1964. He also obtained his M.Sc. degree in Agriculture in Animal Husbandry and Dairying in the year 1966. The said degree is said to have all along been treated as equivalent to degree in Animal Husbandry.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Technical Assistant (Livestock) through Union Public Service Commission in the year 1977. The essential qualification for holding the said post was degree in Animal Husbandry or Veterinary Science from a recognized university or a degree equivalent thereto. The petitioner having the requisite qualification, was not only selected in the post of Senior Technical Assistant (livestock) but also was promoted to the post of Assistant Livestock Officer wherefor also the similar qualification was prescribed. On or about 2nd December 1994, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Commissioner (Cattle/Sheep) on ad hoc basis and his service was recognized w.e.f. 3rd July 2000. Be it recorded that even for the said post, the prescribed essential educational qualification was the same which the petitioner possessed.

4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 questioned the petitioner's selection, inter alia, on the ground that he did not possess the essential qualification required for his promotion.

5. The said application was filed, inter alia, on the ground that the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep) being of senior veterinary Group A, the same should not have been filled up by a person who was not qualified therefore. The respondents further contended in their Original Application that in terms of the relevant recruitment rules, the essential qualifications for the said post was a degree in veterinary science or animal husbandry or equivalent or post-graduate degree in any branch of animal science related to production as also five years' experience in the field of sheep and wool work as the degree in agriculture possessed by the petitioner herein would not satisfy the afore-mentioned requirement and the promotion granted to the petitioner being de' hors the recruitment rules, the same was ultra vires.

6. The contention of the writ petitioner as also the official respondents, on the other hand, was that the petitioner had been working in the afore-mentioned three posts wherefor also the similar qualification was essential and as such the Tribunal erred in holding contra. In any event, no post in the organization has been defined as veterinary post. The provisions of Indian Veterinary Act, 1984 are not applicable in the case of M.Sc. (Agriculture) with animal husbandry as specialization.

7. The learned Tribunal, however, having regard to the recruitment rules, as also the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 held that the petitioner does not possess the essential qualification. The appointment of the petitioner was, therefore, set aside.

8. Mr. G.D. Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised three-fold contentions in support of the writ petition. The learned counsel would contend that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error of law in so far as it failed to take into consideration that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the said Act cannot be said to have any application whatsoever inasmuch as two different sets of rules operate in two different fields: one deals with the health side of the animals and another, the production side. A person who deals with the production side of the animals does not hold a veterinary post and thus he being not entitled to practise as a veterinary practitioner was not required to possess a veterinary degree. It was next contended that even the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission raised a contention before the Tribunal as also before this court that the petitioner satisfies the requirements of law and he has fulfillled the qualification in terms of the extant rules made under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further contend that in any event the petitioner having been holding the said post since 1977 and having been granted two promotions wherefor the same educational qualification was necessary, it is too late in the day to contend that he does not possess the requisite qualification. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on A.N. Shasthri v. State of Punjab and Ors., and State of Bihar and Anr. v. Ramesh Chandra and Anr. .

9. Mr. Deepak Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, on the other hand, would contend that the matter relating to the qualification for holding a veterinary post is governed by the provisions of the said Act. According to the learned counsel, the degrees specified in the Schedule appended thereto are recognized and as the degree possessed by the petitioner does not fall within the purview thereof, it has rightly been held by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner being not possessed of the requisite qualification, his appointment was illegal. It was pointed out that the petitioner herein is not even registered with the Veterinary Council. The learned counsel, in this connection, has also relied upon a letter of the Veterinary Council of India dated 21st February 1992 which is in the following terms:

"Subject: Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984--Implementation.

Sir,

The Council in frequently receiving complaints regarding the appointment of persons not possessing requisite recognized veterinary qualifications included in the First or Second Schedule of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, against the posts with Veterinary qualification (by whatever name called) in Government/Non-Government Organisations/institutions. Some of the advertisements issued leave opportunities for such violations.

Your attention is invited to this Council's circular letter No. 4-3/90-VCI/1449, dated 20th November, 1991, wherein the following provisions of Section 30 of Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 were highlighted:-

"No person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, shall hold office as veterinary physician or surgeon or any other like office (by whatever name called) in Govt. or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority and practice veterinary medicine in any State."

In order to see that the above provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act are not violated, it is requested that you may kindly take following precautions while advertising the posts:-

(i) When posts with Veterinary qualifications (by whatever name called)in any deptt., faculty or institution is advertised vague terms like "degree or diploma in Veterinary Science or Animal Husbandry" "recognized degree or diploma in Veterinary Science" and such other or similar terms be avoided and replaced with "a recognized veterinary qualification included in the First or Second Schedule to the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and registered with a State Veterinary Council."

(ii) A column for recording registration number be provided in the application forms.

(iii) At the time of any new appointment, the certificate of registration be verified.

It is, therefore, requested that the above suggestions be enforced to ensure that the responsibility for violation of law will not rest with the authorities of the institution/authorities making such appointments. Where the authorities feel necessary the recruitment rules may also be amended accordingly."

10. Drawing our attention to the recruitment rules, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner had earlier been promoted by way of mistake. He would contend that in the event a candidate does not possess the requisite qualification, his appointment must be held to be a nullity and even the official respondents do not have any power to relax any essential qualification. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Gauri Shankar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., manu/sc/0010/1995 and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, .

11. It was submitted that even working for a long time would not sub-serve the statutory requirements. Reliance in this connection has been placed on State of MP and Anr. v. Dharam Bir, , K.S. Mathew and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Ors., 2002 (1) SLR 229 Jagdish Prajapat v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1998 (2) ATJ 286.

12. Before proceeding to deal with the rival contentions, we may notice that the respondents No. 3 and 4 in their counter-affidavit stated:

"9. As submitted in paras above, the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep) relates to Animal production, and not to Animal Health, and therefore, the possession of veterinary qualification for holding this post is not considered essential by this Department. The applicant is possessing a Degree in Agriculture with "Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science" as one of the subjects. In addition, he possesses the Master's degree in Agriculture with Animal Husbandry and therefore he fulfillled the prescribed qualifications for the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep)

GROUNDS : It is true that the R/Rs for the post of Assistant Commissioner, including AC (Sheep) were revised after the coming into force of the Indian Veterinary Council (IVC), Act 1984. It would have been unfair to block the career prospects of the serving Assistant Livestock Officers (ALOs) by making the Animal Production side posts as veterinary posts and therefore, keeping this aspect in view, the Department kept the alternative qualifications under "OR" clause, prescribing Animal Husbandry also. For the posts on Animal Health side, there is no provision of alternative qualification i.e. degree in Animal Husbandry. As already stated, the posts in this Department are divided into two headings, viz. Animal Production and Animal Health. The post of AC (Sheep) held by the petitioner falls into the category of Animal Production and therefore, the possession of Veterinary qualification was not considered essential for the incumbents of these post. For the posts on the Animal Health side, possession of veterinary degree by the incumbents of the post is considered essential, as the work of disease control and animal health is involved and, therefore, a non-veterinary may not be able to undertake this job.

The Hon'ble Tribunal has failed to make distinction between the posts on the Animal Production side and the Animal Health side. Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal have erred in holding in the O.A. filed by the parties who are not having any cause of action as both the applicants in the O.A. No. 1864/2000, were not eligible for the post of AC(Sheep).

The Recruitment Rules for the post of AC(Sheep) and other similar posts have been amended in the year 1987 after the coming into force of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. As stated in above paras, to ensure the promotional prospects for the Assistant Livestock Officers serving i the Department, possession of the qualification other than veterinary, i.e., the alternative qualification of Animal Husbandry was retained for the posts on the Animal Production side. The Department did not consider it necessary to keep the posts in this category solely for veteiranarians, i.e. for persons having Veterinary Degree. Therefore, the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 ought not to be applied to these posts."

13. The respondent No. 2, in its counter-affidavit before the Central Administrative Tribunal stated:

"4.11-4.12 In reply to these paras it is humbly submitted that the nature of work of the post permits Degree in Animal Husbandry or Veterinary Science and Degree in Animal husbandry is also provided by many universities. The Indian Veterinary Council Act (IVC ACT) is concerned with only degrees in the field of veterinary science, whereas the candidates for the post in question, holding degree in animal husbandry are also eligible as per the Recruitment Rules. In view of this, it was not required to insert the qualification as included in the first or Second Schedule to the IVC Act and registration with the Veterinary Council of India or State Veterinary Council."

14. The afore-mentioned stand taken by the official respondents would, therefore, clearly show that according to the employers, the petitioner fulfillled the requisite qualification.

15. It is not dispute that the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep) is governed by the rules known as 'Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Assistant Commissioner (Animal Husbandry Division) Recruitment Rules, 1987. The said Rule was notified in the Official Gazette on 20th February 1987. The relevant provisions of the Schedule appended thereto as under:

Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits

ESSENTIAL

(i) Degree in Veterinary Science or Animal Husbandry of a recognised University or equivalent.

(ii) Post-graduate degree in any branch of Animal Science related to production.

(iii) 5 years' experience in the field of: -

(a) Cattle Development (For Assistant Commissioner (Cattle Development)

(b) Sheep & Wool Work (For Assistant Commissioner (Sheep)

(c) Swine Husbandry / Pork Technology (For Assistant Commissioner (Piggary)

(d) Equine Development / Research work or Planning of Stud Farms (For Assistant Commissioner (Equine Development).

(e) Running/ Coordination of working of Carcass Utilisation centres (For Assistant Commissioner (Carcass Utilisation)

NOTE: 1. Qualifications are Relaxable at the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission in case of candidates otherwise well qualified.

NOTE: 2. The Qualification (s) regarding experience is/are Relaxable at the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes it, at any stage of Selection, the Union Public Service Commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities possessing the requisite experience are not likely to be available to fill up the vacancies reserved for them.

Desirable: Doctorate in the branch of Animal Sciences.

(Exact requirements will be indicated at the time of recruitment)

Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for the direct recruits will apply in case of promotees.

Period of Probation, if any,

Method of recruitment whether  by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percentage of the vacancies to be   filled   by   various methods.

Age : No. Educational qualifications: Yes

NOTE: The possession of a  Master's Degree in any Branch of Animal Sciences related to production shall not be insisted upon for those persons working in the post of Assistant Livestock Officer on a regular basis on the date of promulgation of these rules.

1. year of direct recruits.

2 years for promotee officers.

(i)    50%    by    promotion failing which direct recruitment.

(ii) 50% by direct recruitment

In case of recruitment: by promotion/deputation/transfer, grades from which promotion/ deputation/transfer to be made

Promotion: Assistant Livestock Officer with 8 years' regular service in the grade.

16. As noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the petitioner is that as held had been working as a livestock officer, the degree in veterinary science was not necessary therefore.

17. The learned Tribunal, however, in arriving at its finding, as referred to a purported letter dated 31st May 1989 wherein the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep) was said to be a veterinary post and thus came to the conclusion that therefore the following essential qualification was allegedly necessary:

"Essential:

(i) Degree in Veterinary Science or Animal husbandry of a recognized University or equivalent;

(ii) Post Graduate degree in any branch of Animal Science related to production;

(iii) 5 years experience in the field of

(b) Sheep and Wool work."

18. It appears that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in arriving at the impugned findings in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the said educational qualification was required for a veterinary post. Such posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment whereas the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep) was to be filled up in the ratio each by way of direct recruitment and promotion failing which by direct recruitment. The difference between the post graduate degree in any branch of veterinary science from a recognised university was not necessary to be possessed for holding the post in question inasmuch as, as noticed hereinbefore, there exists a difference between animal science and veterinary science.

19. The learned Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, referred to a letter dated 31st May 1989, which was merely issued for the purpose of grant of non-practicing allowance in respect of the persons holding veterinary posts. One of the posts, which had been mentioned therein as Assistant Commissioner (Sheep) only. Having regard to the contents of the said letter, it appears, that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep is a veterinary post without taking into considering the counter-affidavits filed by the Union Public Service Commission and the Union of India.

20. Furthermore, when the qualification required for holding a particular post is governed by statutory rules, the learned Tribunal in our opinion committed a serious error in giving preference to a mere letter issued in connection with the grant of non-practicing allowance in preference to the statutory rules.

21. However, it appears that the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Community Development and Cooperation, in terms of its letter dated 12th April 1996, while making appointments, laid down the following essential qualifications:

"Essential :- (i) A degree in Animal Husbandry or Veterinary Science from a recognized University or equivalent.

(ii) About 2 years experience of research/livestock development work. (Qualifications relaxable at Commission's discretion in case of candidates otherwise well qualified).

Essential Qualification for the post of Assistant Live Stock Officer as per Recruitment Rules Notified vide EBR 1665 dated 8.10.1976.

Essential:

(i) Degree in Animal Husbandry or Veterinary Science from a Recognised University of Equivalent.

(ii) 3 years experience of Research Livestock Development work.

Desirable : Post graduate training in any branch of Animal Husbandry."

22. It is thus evident that a candidate was required to possess a degree in animal husbandry or veterinary science or a post equivalent thereto.

23. The petitioner, it will bear repetition to state, obtained a degree in Bachelor of Science and Agriculture with Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science as one of the subjects and also a Master of Science in Agriculture in Animal Husbandry and the qualification possessed by the petitioner had all along been recognised as equivalent to the degree in animal husbandry.

24. We may further notice that when a question was raised as to whether having regard to the stand taken by the Veterinary Council, it is necessary to amend the recruitment rules, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India who is also Secretary to ICAR, Department of Agriculture Research and Eduction in the Ministry of Agriculture by a letter dated 15th March 1999 clarified as under:

"Please refer to your DO letter number 1011/1/99 Admn. I dated 12.1.99 forwarding therewith that two representations dated 21.12.98 of Hon'ble Members of Parliament Smt. Malti Devi and Smt. Rama Devi regarding eligibility of persons possessing the Degree/post Graduate degree in Agriculture/Animal Husbandry / animal Science for the posts in the Department under technical units.

The cases has been examined in the council and it has been observed that the veterinary science qualification is essential for the activities in the field of Live Stock Health care as it may involve veterinary medicine, surgery etc./ However, for the activite like Live Stock Breeding, Production and Management including, Poultry, Animal Nutrition and Production and Processing of Food and fodder and live stock, product handling, processing, storage and marketing etc. graduates and post graduates trained in Animal Husbandry and Dairying with Agricultural Background will be equally competent, if not more, when compared to Veterinary Science graduates and post graduates. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the present recruitment rules of keeping the door open for employment persons, coming from both streams i.e. Animal Science and Dairying degree with Agriculture background and veterinary science and Animal Husbandry degree need not be changed."

25. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt whatsoever that according to the Union of India as also Union Public Service Commission not only the petitioner fulfillled the requisite educational qualification in terms of GSR 595 dated 12th April 1966, despite coming into force of the said Act in the year 1984 and the stand taken by the Council, that it was not even necessary to amend the rules.

26. The submission of Mr. Deepak Verma, with reference to the Veterinary Council of India's letter, appears to be misplaced. By reason of the said letter, an opinion was given to the effect that no degree in animal husbandry having been awarded by any University in India, the same could not be compared with the degree in veterinary sciences. In the afore-mentioned situation, a clarification was sought for as to whether the Rules have to be amended or not. As indicated hereinbefore, the Union of India considered the matter in great details and came to a conscious decision that such amendment is not necessary having regard to the duties and functions attached to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep).

27. It, therefore, cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. In a situation of this nature, it was for the Commission and the Union of India to satisfy themselves as to whether the candidate satisfies the educational criteria or not having regard to the matter of duties and functions attached to the post.

28. The duties and functions of Assistant Commissioner (Sheep) are as follows:

"To formulate sheep Development Schemes.

(i) To Supervise the implementation of sheep development scheme in various states.

(ii) To plan and coordinate the work relating to sheep breeding farms/sheep & wool extension centre."

29. Holder of such a post, therefore, is not required to perform any duty relating to treatment of the animals wherefor the degree in veterinary science and registration with the Veterinary Council was necessary. In view of the degree held by the petitioner, he evidently cannot practise as veterinary practitioner.

30. He cannot be appointed to be posted on any post wherefor it would be necessary to perform any duty as regards maintenance of health and treatment of the diseases of the animals. In any event, it is also not a case where the qualification was not relaxable. They were relaxable at the instance of the Commission and thus, the appointment of the writ petitioner per se could not have been held by the Tribunal to be a nullity.

31. Keeping in view of the fact that two different sets of rules are applicable for the holders of posts on two different sides namely health side and production side, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal misdirected itself in passing the impugned judgment.

32. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

33. In Smt. Ravinder Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., , the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the selectee did not possess the qualification as specified in the advertisement. In the said situation, it was held:

"11. The appellant was directly appointed. In such a case, the qualification must be either:

(i) A Graduate/Intermediate Second Class, or

(ii) Matric First Class.

12. Admittedly, the appellant did not possess this qualification. That being so, the appointment is bad. The Commission recommended to the Government for relaxation of the qualification under Regn. 17 of the regulations. The Government rejected that recommendation. Where, therefore, the appointment was clearly against Regn. 7, it was liable to be set aside. That being so, no question of estoppel would ever arise. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court."

34. In District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, , a similar question arose and in relation thereto it was held:

"6. It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment it made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualification than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appointment persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact."

35. In K.S. Mathew and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Ors., 2002(1) SLJ 229, a Division Bench was considering a case where a promotion was granted in relaxation of the essential qualification when there did not exist any power in relation thereto. In the afore-mentioned situation, this court, upon taking into consideration various decisions of the apex court held:

"The power of relaxation in the rules cannot be construed to mean that the respondent Government can ignore the legitimate claims of the qualified candidates and relax the conditions in case of unqualified persons. In case, the respondent Government is permitted to relax the power in such manner, then it would be contrary to the settled principles of law crystallized by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a large number of cases which have been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs."

36. In Jagdish Prajapat v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1998 (2) ATJ 286, a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court merely held that the appointments made in contravention of the recruitment rules, would be illegal. There cannot be any quarrel with the afore-mentioned proposition.

37. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Dharam Bir, , the Apex Court while considering the matter as to whether the status of an ad hoc employee in the absence of a statute or statutory rules can be changed to a regular employee, although they did not fulfill the educational qualification, held that the educational qualification has direct nexus with the nature of the post. It was further held that gaining a similar experience itself cannot be treated as equivalent to his knowledge in a subject for which he does not possess a degree which was a pre-requisite.

38. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the aforementioned decisions are not applicable.

39. In A.N. Shashtri v. State of Punjab and Ors., , it was held:

"4. We shall first deal with the appeal arising out of the quo warranto proceedings. The first qualification which we have referred to above appears to be a common qualification for almost all the ranks covered by Appendix 'A' namely, that a degree should have been obtained after five or more years of regular course having been gone through. No dispute has been raised to the appellant's appointment as Deputy Director. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents who had petitioned the High Court pointed out with reference to the correspondence with the State Public Service Commission that in regard to the qualification for the post of Deputy Director, a degree or diploma was considered sufficient. The State Public Service Commission had raised objection to the Government's proposal of fixing the degree qualification by pointing out that since @ page - SC 406 a degree after studying for five or more years of regular course was the requirement for the higher post of Director, a lesser qualification should be prescribed for the post of Deputy Director and accordingly the alternates had been adopted. When we pointed out to her that for the post of Assistant Director - it cannot be disputed that Deputy Director's is a superior post - the requirement was five years or more of regular course in Ayurvedic with a diploma, there was really no answer. We would accordingly hold that the High Court should have looked into this aspect to find out what exactly was the requirement. In view of the fact that there was no challenge to the appointment of the appellant to the post of Deputy Director and the first item of qualification is the same for the Director as also the Assistant Director and as Deputy Director, the appellant held a post between the two, we are not impressed by the stand of the respondents that the appellant was not possessed of the requisite qualification. There is no dispute that the appellant had been serving as Professor for several years. The requisite qualification for that post as per Appendix 'A', as far as relevant is:-

"A degree (five years regular course) in Ayurvedic system of Medicine of a recognised University or of a Board of Indian System of Medicine established by law or from any Ayurvedic College recognised by Government."

As far as this qualification goes, there is indeed no difference in the case of a Professor and that of Director. In giving appointment to the appellant as Professor, it must follow that Government were satisfied that appellant had the requisite qualification.

5. There is material on record to show that in regard to the degree obtainable on completion of the five years course the appellant had read as a regular student for three years in the first instance and for the remaining two years he was directly under a qualified Professor though it was not a study in a regular institution. After reading for five years he has obtained the degree which has been from a recognised University. In the circumstances, it has become difficult to agree with the reasons given by the High Court for its conclusion that the appellant was not having the requisite qualification prescribed under the Rules."

40. The said decision was followed by the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Anr. v. Ramesh Chandra and Anr., , wherein it was categorically held by the Apex Court:

8. "...It is also difficult to appreciate the reason given by the High Court for distinguishing and not applying the decision of this Court in A.N. Shastri's case (supra) and upholding the contention raised on behalf of the respondent. In A.N. Shastri's case the facts were that Shastri was first appointed as Professor and then as Deputy Director. Subsequently, he was promoted as Director. His appointment as Director on promotion was challenged on the pleas that he did not possess the prescribed qualification. This Court noticed that there was no difference in the qualifications prescribed for the posts of Professor and that of Director. It, therefore, held that while giving appointment to him as Professor the Government must have been satisfied that he had the requisite qualification...".

It was further stated:

"...In our opinion, the High Court was not right in not following the ratio of that case that when the prescribed qualifications for the two posts are the same it has to be assumed that the appointing authority was satisfied that the person who was already appointed on one of those posts did possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the other post. It was not shown that the Government was not so satisfied when it had appointed Dr. Chaudhary as Professor. The High Court @ page SC 2389 wrongly placed the burden on Dr. Chaudhary to show that he had received the requisite 'special training' for two years and erroneously held that he had failed to establish that he possessed the said qualification. The decision of this Court in A.N. Shastri's case (supra) squarely applied to the facts of this case, and, therefore, the challenge to the appointment of Dr. Chaudhary as Professor should have been rejected."

41. The said decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

42. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment which cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly.

43. The writ petition is allowed witl.