Ashokkumar Gumansinh Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 6200 Guj

    C/SCA/10308/2017                                         ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10308 of 2017

==========================================================
                  ASHOKKUMAR GUMANSINH CHAUDHARI
                               Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK H PANDIT(5820) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR VD PARGHI(568) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                                   Date : 17/06/2021

                                    ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Pandit for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for respondent no.3 through video conference.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

"(A) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to admit the special civil application.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and be pleased to passed an order by directing Res.

No.3 to provide interview call latter to the petitioner who is already included in the merit list declared by Res. No.3 on merit no 101012142 and the may be given appointment in the chosen place as available as par

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

merit no.

(C) Pending, admission & final hearing hearing of this petition, directing to the Res. no.3 to declare the decision of the res No.3 prima facie illegal and stay the entire merit list and subsequent procedure of allotting job letters to all the selected

following by other departments in which postings are given till the final disposal of this petition.

(D) Such other and further relief in the necessary and interest of justice be granted."

3. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to advertisement for Gujarat Educational Services, Class-II dated 13th February, 2014 the petitioner applied for the same on 21st March, 2014. The petitioner successfully cleared the written test held on 1st June, 2014 and his name was enlisted in the merit list for interview. The petitioner was issued letter dated 5th December, 2015 for verification of documents and accordingly, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents before the authority. After verification of documents, list of successful candidates for interview came to be published on 3 rd August, 2016 wherein name of the petitioner was not included and the petitioner was disqualified for not fulfilling the requisite criteria as per the advertisement. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

4. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Pandit submitted that the application of the petitioner pursuant to recruitment advertisement for Gujarat Educational Services Class-II published in the year 2014 was accepted with the qualification of the petitioner which is Bachelor of Rural Studies but the petitioner was not called for interview on the ground that he was not having requisite educational qualification as per advertisement stipulating Degree in Bachelor of Arts, Commerce or Science or Agriculture or law.

5. The petitioner therefore, made a representation on 11.8.2016 to consider his Degree in Bachelor of Rural Studies (for short 'BRS') equivalent to that of Bachelor of Arts (for short 'BA'). It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Pandit that the educational qualification of the petitioner is BRS equivalent to BA and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been called for oral interview.

6. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi appearing for respondent no.3 Gujarat Public Service Commission submitted that issue of considering the Degree of BRS equivalent to BA is now decided by Division Bench of this Court in case of Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Dhanjibhaui Savjibhai Maru & Anr reported in 2014(2) GLR 1218. Division Bench after considering various issues raised, held

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

that if the statutory provision is that a candidate must be a holder of a Bachelor's Degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law obtained from recognised Indian or foreign University, such qualification cannot be dispensed with and Degree of Bachelor of Rural Studies cannot be considered equivalent to such degree.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.3 :

"3. That in response to the advertisement No. 116/2013-14 issued by the Respondent Commission for appointment on the post of Gujarat Education Services, Class-II (Administrative Branch) the application of the present Petitioner was received by the Respondent Commission. The educational qualification specified in the said advertisement published by Respondent Commission clearly stipulated that the candidate must have a (i) bachelor's degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture, or Law obtained from India or foreign University recognized by the Government; &

(ii) must have passed BT/B.Ed or an equivalent degree or diploma from a recognized University & (iii) and after obtaining BT/B.Ed degree the candidate must have 5 years of educational, supervisory or administrative experience & (iv) candidate must have knowledge of Gujarati language.

4. That after completion of preliminary exam the Respondent Commission had on 10.09.2014 published a list of candidates entitled for sitting in oral interview. It is an admitted

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

position of fact that the Petitioner was only holding degree of Bachelor of Rural Studies (hereinafter referred to as 'BRS' for the sake of brevity) and does not have degree of Bachelor's degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or law, as per the prescribed provision in statutory Recruitment Rules of the concerned post. Therefore the application form of the Petitioner was rejected in accordance with the educational qualification specified in the advertisement and hence the petitioner was not called for the interview.

5. That from. the statutory Recruitment Rules and the advertisement issued, it is clear that the candidate applying for the said post must possess a bachelor's degree in either science, arts, commerce, agriculture or law. It is submitted in this educational requirement there is no question of any equivalence. Hence the candidate must possess the above stated bachelor's degree only and there cannot be any claim for equivalence of any other educational qualification. Therefore claim of the petitioner that BRS (Agriculture) be treated as equivalent to BA degree cannot be accepted. It is for this sole reason that the Respondent Commission has rejected the application form of the petitioner and did not call the petitioner for interview.

6. That the advertisement has been issued in accordance with the recruitment rules namely the Gujarat Educational Service, Class-II (Administrative Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1969 which clearly provides vide R.3(b) that the candidate must have bachelor's degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law. Therefore also the candidature of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected and the Petitioner is not called for the interview in accordance with the provisions of the recruitment rules. A copy of the Gujarat Educational Service, Class-II (Administrative Branch) Recruitment Rules,

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

1969 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE 'R-1'.

7. That the Respondent Commission further categorically states that not a single applicant having BRS qualification has been included in the list of candidates called for interview therefore the assertion of the Petitioner that he has been discriminated against is baseless and without any evidence.

8. That it is the case of the Respondent Commission that after being selected to the post of Gujarat Educational Services, Class-- II such candidates have to discharge duties relating to secondary education as Principal or kelavni inspector at secondary schools and hence such candidates have to manage and deal with the responsibilities associated with secondary education. Therefore lowering the standard of education qualification is not in the interest of entire administrative set up.

9. That similar questions had arose before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Gujarat Public Service Commission v/s Dhanjibhai Savjibhai Maru & Anr [Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 of 2013) where in has been held that BSR degree is not equivalent to the degree of BA, relying upon and discussing of this Hon'ble Court and the Apex Court. It is submitted that this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench's judgment dated 13/12/2013. A copy of the judgment dated 13/12/2013 tendered by this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 550 of 2013 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE 'R-2'.

10. That in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at para 13 the Hon'ble Court has also dealt with the aspect of the Government Resolution upon which the Petitioner is relying. It has been held that the said judgment that even if BRS

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

is considered to be equivalent to BA, still it is only for a limited purpose and further that when the requirement of law in sub-rule

(b) of Rule 3 is that a candidate must have actual degree, and not an equivalent degree, he cannot claim that by getting an equivalent degree. Therefore also as the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. That further it is most humbly submitted that the list of candiates called for interview was publishd on 03.08.2016. Moreover, as per the petitioner's own case his last representation was dated 11.08.2016 whereas the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court has been preferred on 03.05.2017 and the notice in the matter has been issued on 14.06.2017 with a direction that one post is to be kept vacant. It is submitted taht grievance has been raised before this Hon'ble Court almost after the lapse of one year and the Petitioner has not explained this delay in the entire petition.

12. That more importantly in pursuance of the advertisement the results have been declared on 27.01.2017, 17.03.2017 and 01.09.2017 and accordingly the name of successful candidates have been forwarded to the concerned Government office and pursuant thereto all appointments have been made. Hence it is submitted that this petition is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone."

In view of the aforesaid averments, it was submitted that the petition is required to be dismissed.

8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

materials on record, it appears that the issue of considering the Degree of BRS equivalent to that of BA is no more res integra as held by Division Bench in case of Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Dhanjibhaui Savjibhai Maru & Anr(supra), the Division Bench in the said judgment held as under :

"8. We have already pointed that the requirement of sub-rule (c) is B.T./B.Ed. or an equivalent Degree or Diploma of a recognized University but for sub-rule (b), equivalent degree is not the requirement.

9. So far as the case of Dhanjibhai Savjibhai Maru is concerned, though he has obtained a Master of Arts Degree, the same is not from a 'statutory Indian or foreign University' but is given by Gujarat Vidyapith, which is a recognized College under the University Grants Commission. Therefore, the said M.A. Degree cannot be taken into consideration, the same not being a degree conferred by a statutory Indian or foreign university but by a college recognized by the University Grant Commission. The position would have been different if the said petitioner had M.A. Degree given by any statutory Indian or foreign University.

10. We, therefore, find that none of the writ-petitioner had the requisite qualification in terms of rule 3(b) of the Rules quoted above.

11. Although Mr. Pujara tried to convince us that Gujarat Vidyapith is a "deemed university" and thus, is a recognized university, we are not impressed by this submission in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of DENTAL COUNCIL

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

OF INDIA VS HARI PRAKASH reported in AIR 2001 SC 3303 where the question before the Supreme Court was whether the All India Institute of Medical Science is "a university established by law". In that context, the Supreme Court made the following observations:

"We may in this context notice the provisions of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Act']. Section 22 of the UGC Act provides that the right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised by three categories of institutions, namely, (1) a University established or incorporated by a Central or a State Act; (2) an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act; and (3) an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

6.1. The fact that there are three kinds of authorities empowered to grant degrees or diplomas is too well known in educational field and is legislatively taken note of as aforesaid. Thus it is clear that there are various institutions in India other than Universities which are empowered to confer or grant degrees and diplomas and AIIMS is one such institution. Therefore, it cannot be said that mere fact of being empowered under the AIIMS Act to confer degrees or diplomas, would convert it into a University established by law.

7. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. When the words used are not ambiguous, literal meaning has to be applied, which is the golden rule of interpretation.

8. To interpret the meaning of the

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

expression 'University' the High Court proceeded to examine various dictionaries. That exercise could not have been undertaken by the High Court in view of the fact that the expression used in Section 3(d) of the Act is 'a University established by law'. The expression used is not just a 'University' but 'University established by law' and the expression 'University' cannot be divorced from the following words 'established by law'. Entire expression "University established by law" constitutes one concept and is well known in law as indicated in Section 22 of the UGC Act. Hence, construction of the expression used in the Act with reference to dictionaries is not called for. Such a course will result in either omission of words in the Act such as 'established by law' or to add different words which is not permissible in the language of the Act." [Emphasis supplied by us]

11.1 In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, we do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Pujara that Gujarat Vidyapith being recognized by the University Grant Commission, it should be treated to be a statutory university within the meaning of sub-rule (b) of Rule

3.

12. Mr. Pujara also relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of BUDHABHAI NARANBHAI MAKWANA VS GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH (Special Civil Application no. 12987 of 1994) disposed of on June 28, 1990, where it was held that Gujarat Vidhyapith is a university within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 when the said Section 2(f) specifically defined university as a university constituted under the relevant University Act and includes any institution of higher education in the State other than a university declared under Section 3 of the

C/SCA/10308/2017 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021

University Grant Commission Act, 1956 to be deemed university for the purpose of the said Act. In the case before us, Rule 3(b) does include degree granted by similar deemed university but restricted to the degree granted by a Statutory Indian or foreign university. Therefore, the said decision cannot be of any help to Mr. Pujara's client.

13. Thus, the learned Single Judge erred in law in considering the writ-petitioners as the candidates having the requisite qualification by relying upon a Government Resolution where the State Government considered B.R.S. Degree equivalent to B.A. Degree for a limited purpose. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the said Government Resolution, for a restricted purpose, recognized such degree as an equivalent degree, but for that reason, the requirement of a statutory provision that a candidate must be a holder of a Bachelor's degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law of statutory Indian or foreign University cannot be dispensed with.

14. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge in both the writ-petitions, and hold that the writpetitioners in both the writ-petitions do not have requisite qualifications in terms of Rule 3(b) of the Rules. The appeals are, thus, allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs."

9. In view of above dictum of law, petition fails and is accordingly. Notice is discharged.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR