Sangita Rani Arora & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5958 Del

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Judgment reserved on: May 24, 2017
                                          Judgment delivered on: October 30, 2017

+      W.P.(C) 7015/2016

       SANGITA RANI ARORA & ORS                                        ..... Petitioners
                             Through:                 Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. with
                                                      Mr. Sri Om Swarup, Adv.
                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                              ..... Respondents
                                       Through:       Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. with Mr.
                                                      Pradeep Jha & Mr. Atul Krishan,
                                                      Advs. for R-1 &4
                                                      Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. for R-2
                                                      Mr. Rajesh Kumar with Mr. Gaurav
                                                      Kr. Singh, Advs. for R-3/Canara
                                                      Bank
                                                      Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv. for R-6
                                                      Mr. Anil Soni, SC for AICTE

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

                                   JUDGMENT

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

W.P.(C) 7015/2016

1. In view of order dated May 23, 2017, this petition survives only in respect of

petitioner no.13, namely Raj Kumar.

2. The challenge in this petition is primarily to a decision of the respondent no.3

Canara Bank cancelling the provisional allotment of petitioner no.13 to the post of

Specialist Officer [(Marketing Officer) (Scale-I)].

3. The facts as noted from the writ petition are that on November 16, 2015, IBPS,

respondent no.2 had issued an advertisement for conducting CWE-SPL-V for selection

of personnel in six Specialist Officers Cadre Posts including the post of [(Marketing

Officer) (Scale-I)] in different Nationalized Banks / Financial Institutions including

Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank etc. The educational qualification prescribed for the

candidates to be eligible for Marketing officer was, a Graduate having completed Full-

Time MMS (Marketing) / MBA (Marketing) / Full-Time 2 years PGDBA/PGDBM with

Specialization in Marketing. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein had qualified

the selection process and final results were declared on April 1, 2016. He was intimated

that he has been provisionally allotted against vacancies in Canara Bank. Respondent

No.2 / IBPS had also issued a notification dated April 1, 2016 explaining the process of

provisional allotment.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3 Canara Bank had sent a letter

dated June 29, 2016 to the petitioner thereby cancelling the provisional allotment on the

ground that his educational qualification did not meet the eligibility criterion stipulated

by IBPS for the post of Marketing Officer (Scale-I). Suffice to state, the qualification of

the petitioner is Master in Marketing Management.

5. Respondent no.3 Canara Bank has filed its counter-affidavit as well as an

additional affidavit inter alia stating that in terms of advertisement dated November 16,

2015, a candidate was required to have specialization in Marketing even in case he has

Full-Time Degree of MMS / MBA / Full-Time 2 year PGDBA / PGDBM. Any

candidate not having specialization in Marketing shall not be eligible for consideration

for appointment. It is the stand that qualification of Master in Marketing Management

is not prescribed qualification in the advertisement dated November 16, 2015.

6. Respondent no.2 / IBPS, apart from challenging the maintainability of the writ

petition qua it, has stated that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification in

terms of the advertisement.

7. Respondent no.6 / UGC has filed a reply on record stating that the grievance of

the petitioner is primarily that his educational qualification prescribed in the

advertisement is equivalent to the qualification possessed by him. It is also stated that

equivalence of degrees and diplomas is not undertaken by the UGC. It also stated that

in case of recruitment it is the employer and in case of pursuit of higher studies it is the

University which may undertake the exercise of determining the equivalence between

degrees and the diplomas.

8. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner being Master in Marketing Management fulfils the qualification

prescribed in terms of the advertisement inasmuch as the said qualification is equivalent

to MBA (Marketing). It is his submission that syllabus of Master in Marketing

Management consist of all the subjects that are in MBA (Marketing). He also states,

qualification of Master in Marketing Management is equivalent to MMS. He also

states, one candidate Pradeep got selected in Bank of Baroda whereas, respondent no.3

is taking vexatious objection in the appointment of petitioner no.13. He has drawn my

attention to curriculum of Master in Marketing Management as well as MBA

(Marketing) and MMS, to contend on the equivalence of the qualification possessed by

the petitioner and also sought in terms of the advertisement issued by IBPS. According

to him, the aspect of equivalence has been certified by the Institute from which the

petitioner had acquired the qualification. He has also drawn my attention to various

documents including the notification of the UGC issued in March, 2014 to contend that

the qualification of Master in Marketing Management as possessed by the petitioner has

been restructured as MBA / M.Com (Marketing Management). In other words, the

Degree of Master in Marketing Management is in fact MBA (Marketing Management).

Hence, the qualification possessed by the petitioner is in fact MBA (Marketing

Management) which is the requirement in terms of the advertisement. He would also

state, in terms of the notification of the UGC, Savitribai Phule Pune University, the

University from which the petitioner had acquired his qualification of Master in

Marketing Management issued a circular dated June 22, 2015 stating that the Degree

presently run by the Savitribai Phule Pune University (previously Pune University) has

changed the nomenclature of MMM i.e Master in Marketing Management as MBA

(Marketing Management). He would also refer to a judgment rendered by the Single

Judge of the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition (C) 28538/2016 decided on November

24, 2016 wherein on a similar issue whether the Post-Graduate Diploma in Management

is equivalent to MBA, the learned Single Judge relying on the stand of the AICTE,

which is the authority empowered to recognize degrees and diplomas conducted by

private colleges in Management Studies and also the stand of an Association of Indian

Universities, held the diploma possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to MBA Degree

and thereby allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein directing the

respondent no.1 Bank, i.e., the Canara Bank to allow the petitioner therein to join the

duties. The appeal before the Division Bench by the Canara Bank was dismissed. He

had also drawn my attention to a judgment of the High Court at Bombay (Nagpur

Bench) wherein a question arose whether the petitioner therein who had applied for the

post of Agricultural Field Officer, Scale-I and possessed a Degree of Food Technology

and not in Food Science would be a relevant qualification. The court after noting the

submissions on behalf of the petitioner that the Degree of Food Science is equivalent to

Degree in Food Technology as the Degree awarded was known as Food Science till the

year 2006-2007 and thereafter as Food Technology which position was not disputed by

the respondents granted the appointment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-

I) to the petitioner therein. Suffice to state, SLP filed before the Supreme Court has

since been dismissed on March 10, 2017. Mr. Panigrahi seeks the grant of relief in

favour of the petitioner.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar / Gaurav Kumar, learned counsels

appearing for the respondent no.3 would reiterate the stand taken by the said respondent

in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner's qualifications are not the same as required in

the advertisement. It is also argued that this Court does not have expertise nor is

competent to determine the equivalence in qualification possessed by the petitioner and

required by the respondent for appointment as Marketing Officer. They would rely

upon the following judgments in support of their contentions:

"1. Mohammad Shujat Ali and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. & Sunkara Rattaiah and Ors. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [1975 (3) SCC]

2. State of Rajasthan and ors. v. Lata Arun, [2002 (6) SCC 252]

3. Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors. [2008 (7) SCC 153]

4. Mohd Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. [2009 (4) SCC 555]

5. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [2009 (13) SCC 635]

6. Narender Kr. Joshi v. UOI & Ors. [115 (2204) DLT 663]

7. Ms. Nisha v. UOI & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 6100/2012 judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi on 26.11.2012.

8. Ms. Nisha v. UOI and Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 6100/2012, order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 12.07.2013.

9. Gaurav Singh v. UOI and 3 Ors. in Writ - A. No. 44934 of 2013 passed by the High Court of Allahabad on 30.04.2015.

9. Sachin Sheshrao Narnaware v. UOI in W.P. No. 3829 of 2014, order passed by High Court Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 09.12.2014."

10. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 would

reiterate the stand taken in the counter-affidavit so also Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, learned

counsel appearing for respondent no.6 / UGC.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue which arises for

consideration is whether the qualification of Master in Marketing Management

possessed by the petitioner is the same or equivalent to the qualification of MBA

(Marketing) as required by the advertisement dated November 16, 2015 issued by the

respondent no.2 for appointment to the post of Marketing Officer in the respondent

Bank.

12. It is noted pursuant to the notification of the UGC of March, 2014 (notified on

July 05, 2014) wherein the Degree of Master in Marketing Management has been

restructured as MBA (Marketing Management), the University from which the

petitioner had acquired his Master in Marketing Management, i.e., University of Pune

later named as Savitribai Phule Pune University has vide its circular dated June 22,

2015, has changed the nomenclature of the Degree of Master in Marketing Management

as MBA (Marketing Management), which is the requirement in terms of the

advertisement dated November 16, 2015. So, the plea of the respondent no.3 Canara

Bank in their pleadings that the petitioner no.13 herein does have the prescribed

qualification in terms of the advertisement dated November 16, 2015 is not sustainable.

I find, despite the petitioner filing an application being CM. No. 12337/2017 wherein

the petitioner had relied upon the notification of the UGC of March, 2014 (as notified

on July 5, 2014), no attempt has been made by the Canara Bank to clarify the position

which emerges from the notification of March, 2014 (as notified on July 5, 2014) by the

UGC, rather they in their affidavit filed on January 30, 2017, they reiterate the position

initially taken in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner's qualification of Master in

Marketing Management is not a prescribed qualification in the advertisement dated

November 16, 2015.

13. The case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Bombay High in the

case of Neelam Rama Kamble v. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) 5283/2016

inasmuch as in the said case also, the Degree which was acquired by the petitioner was

in Food Technology. The said Degree was termed / known as Degree Course in Food

Science till 2006-2007 and thereafter as Food Technology. The appeal of the Canara

Bank was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Similarly in the case in hand even assuming

the Degree of petitioner was termed as Master in Marketing Management, post the

notification of the UGC March, 2014 (as notified on July 05, 2014) or for that matter,

post the circular of the Savitribai Phule Pune University on June 22, 2015 termed the

Degree as MBA (Marketing Management). The petitioner is also entitled to the relief as

prayed for in the present petition inasmuch the decision of the respondent no.3 dated

March 29, 2016 to cancel the provisional allotment of the petitioner for the post of

Specialist Officer [(Marketing Officer) (Scale-I)] is set aside and the respondent no.3

Canara Bank is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner within

four weeks and the appointment of the petitioner shall be treated of the batch for which,

the petitioner was allotted the said post.

14. Insofar as the judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent

No. 3 are concerned, in Mohammad Shujat Ali (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. Lata

Arun (supra), on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel in support of their

contention that the Courts cannot decide whether a particular qualification should or

should not be accepted as equivalent qualification prescribed by the Authority, suffice

to state, there is no dispute on the said proposition. In the facts, the said judgments have

no applicability.

15. Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar (supra) is

concerned, the Supreme Court was concerned with an issue, any appointment made

without having qualification from a recognized Institution is a nullity. In the said case,

the degree of B.Ed was acquired from an Institution, which was not recognized to

conduct a B.Ed Course. The judgment has no applicability, as the issue in this case is

not whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner No. 13 is from a recognized

Institution or not, but, is in terms of advertisement issued by respondent No.2 IBPS.

16. In Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra), the Supreme Court held that the recruitment

must be held in terms of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The Supreme

Court held, after advertising the educational qualification as Masters Degree in

Chemistry (or pure Chemistry) for the post of Lecturer in University polytechnic and

could not have been filled by a person who holds a Masters Degree in Industrial

Chemistry. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The judgment is distinguishable

on facts.

17. Insofar as the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors v.

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), is concerned, the reliance placed by the learned

counsel for the respondent No.3 to contend that, Article 14, carries with it a positive

concept of equality and not for perpetuating illegality is concerned, there is no dispute

on the said proposition, but in the peculiar facts of this case, I am afraid the said

proposition would have no applicability.

18. The judgment of Narender Kumar Joshi (supra), wherein this Court, has held

that the petitioner possessed the requisite knowledge and directed his appointment,

would be of no help to the respondent No.3. Similar is the judgment in the case of Ms.

Nisha (supra), wherein this Court has, on the basis of Expert Committee evaluation,

determined the equivalence in four subjects and held, in the facts the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali's case is not applicable. Similar is the

position in this case as well in the facts, the judgments in the case of the Mohd. Shujat

Ali (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun (supra) have no applicability.

19. Insofar as the judgment in the case of Gaurav Singh (supra), wherein reliance

was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan's case

(supra), which judgment I have distinguished in the above paras, the same is of no help

to the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

20. Similarly, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sachin Sheshrao Narnaware

(supra), is distinguishable on facts. The petition is allowed, in terms of the above. No

costs.

CM. No. 28832/2016 (for Stay) CM. No. 12337/2017 (for Direction) Dismissed as infructous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

OCTOBER 30, 2017/jg