Gujarat High Court

Kinjal Kunjan Bhatia vs State Of Gujarat on 6 October, 2025

                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/4518/2018                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

                                                                                                                          undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4518 of 2018


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                        Yes                No

                       ==========================================================
                                                         KINJAL KUNJAN BHATIA
                                                                 Versus
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR MIHIR H PATHAK(5261) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - State
                       MR RC JANI(357) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                            Date : 06/10/2025

                                                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present petition, under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner with the

following main prayers :

"25(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of Certiorari as deemed fit to quash and set aside the letter dated 03.02.2018 and 09.03.2018 as both are

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

illegal and may further direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner qualified for Personal Interview for the post of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Class-I, and may further direct to take the Personal Interview of the Petitioner as per Advertisement dated 15.6.2016;

(c) Pending hearing of the present petition Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to immediately call the petitioner for Personal Interview for the post of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Class-I, and the result of the said Interview may be subject to the final outcome of the present petition;

(d) Pending hearing of the present petition Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Respondent NO. 2;

                                                 (dd)      Amendment             carried      out      as      per
                                                 Court's order dated 22-03-2018;


                                                           Pending         hearing     of        the     present

petition Your Lordships be pleased to stay

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

the appointment procedure of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Class-I, for the Advertisement No.GPSC/23/2016-17 dated 15.06.2016;"

2. The brief facts as per the petitioner are epitomised

as under :

2.1. A public advertisement was issued by the

recruiting authority for the post of Assistant Commissioner of

Labour (Class-I) on 15.06.2016.

2.2. In the said advertisement, the educational

qualification prescribed by the authorities is that the

candidate shall possess ;

"17(i) at least a second class degree obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or any other educational institution recognized as such by the Government or declared as deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: or possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government, and,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

(ii) a Master Degree in Social Work or Labour Welfare obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India, or any other educational institution recognized as such by the Government or declared as deemed to be University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: or possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government; and,"

2.3. The petitioner applied for the same knowing fully

aware about the requisite educational qualification.

2.4. The authority had declared the final list for

interview on 06.01.2018, whereby the petitioner was not

included. Therefore, the petitioner has raised grievance before

the authority concerned on 12.01.2018.

2.5. The interview schedule was declared by the

authority on 29.01.2018.

2.6. The petitioner raised objection and protested

against the revocation of her candidature for final interview

on 01.02.2018.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

2.7. The Gujarat Public Service Commission ("The

GPSC" for short) has replied to the petitioner on 03.02.2018.

2.8. The petitioner again wrote letters to the GPSC as

well as other authorities regarding her grievance on

03.02.2018, 10.02.2018, 17.02.2018 and 20.02.2018.

2.9. In the meanwhile, on 15.02.2018, the General

Administration Department sent all the papers of the

petitioner to the Labour and Employment Department to

resolve the issue of the petitioner.

2.10. The Labour and Employment Department has

given negative opinion regarding the petitioner after taking

into consideration the papers sent by the General

Administration Department on 23.02.2018.

2.11. Final list of the candidates for interview was

published by the authorities on 07.03.2018.

2.12. The authority concerned has rejected the request

of the petitioner as per Rule 4(b)(ii) of the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Class-I Recruitment Rules, 2011 that

the degree of the petitioner is not considered as eligible as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

requisite qualification on 09.03.2018.

2.13. Hence this petition.

3. Heard learned advocates. Rule returnable forthwith.

With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective

parties, this petition is taken up for hearing and final

disposal today.

4. It is noted that this Court has, vide order dated

27.03.2018 observed that "Any further process would be

subject to further orders of this Court".

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Mihir Pathak for the

petitioner has submitted that the authorities have failed to

appreciate the contentions of the petitioner while rejecting the

request of the petitioner by stating that since the

qualification of the petitioner is not equivalent to the

qualification as prescribed in Rule 4(b)(ii) of the Rules 2011,

therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered, and

that the authority has failed to justify as to how the

qualification of the petitioner is not equivalent to the MSW

or MLW as required under the advertisement in question;

and that neither in the Recruitment Rules nor in the

advertisement, it was stated that the candidate of PGDHRM

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

will not be considered for the post in question and that the

advertisement in question does not say that equivalent degree

should be Master Degree only and/or it should be 2 years

course only and that the authority did not consider the wider

prospect of the Recruitment Rules; and that the provision of

Rule 4(b)(i) categorically specifies the names of the Degree,

whereas, in Recruitment Rules 2011, no such specific degree

was stated and that it only says the candidate may possess

equivalent degree, but there is no criteria framed to consider

which will be the equivalent degree and that the State

Government Recruitment Rules must consider Diploma as

equivalent to the Master Degree and should consider the case

of the petitioner at par with the Central Recruitment Rules;

and that the intention of Legislature was clear while making

the Rules of 2011 to the effect that it should be equivalent

qualification and not be equivalent degree. He has submitted

that this petition may be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned advocate for Respondent No.2-

GPSC has vehemently opposed this petition. The attention of

this Court has been drawn towards affidavit-in-reply filed by

Respondent No.2 and has submitted that on plain reading of

the requirements, it would make it abundantly clear that the

candidate is required to possess either the qualification

prescribed or qualification which is declared to be equivalent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

to the required qualification, which is recognised by the State

Government; and that the present petitioner possesses the

qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resources

Management which is neither the qualification prescribed nor

declared akin nor equivalent to the required qualification by

the State Government; and that looking to the certificate in

question produced by the petitioner, the author of the

certificate has mentioned that the course has many subjects

similar to the syllabus of Master of Labour Welfare (Veer

Narmada South Gujarat University); and that as such, the

reasons for not inviting the petitioner for oral interview were

communicated by the authorities to the petitioner by the

communications dated 03.02.2018 and 09.03.2018, however, the

petitioner could not submit any communication or declaration

of the State Government that the course, undergone by the

petitioner, is equivalent to the required qualification; and that

the selection process is complete and the GPSC has already

sent the recommendations to the Department of Labour and

Employment vide communication dated 21.03.2018. It is

submitted that this petition may be dismissed.

7. Learned AGP, Ms. Pooja Ashar for the State has

submitted that the petitioner cannot claim equivalence of

degrees dehors the rules. It is submitted that it is the

recruiting authority who has decided the criteria as per its

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

requirements and none of the candidates, more particularly

ineligible candidate, can claim a right for the post in

question; and that it is the prerogative of the recruiting

authority to decide the criteria and this Court has very

limited scope to interfere in it, as observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court time and again. It is submitted that this

petition may be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned advocates for the respective

parties. I have perused the documents available on record

including the affidavit-in-reply as well as the affidavit-in-

rejoinder.

8.1. From the record, the following undisputed facts are

noticed.

8.2. In the advertisement in question, the authority has

clearly stated about the requisite educational qualification,

i.e., more particularly a Master Degree in Social Work or

Labour Welfare.

Undisputably, the petitioner possesses the

qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Human Resources

Management.

Inspite of the repeated reminders by the

authorities, the petitioner could not submit any

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

communication or declaration of the State Government that

the course, undergone by the petitioner, is equivalent to the

required qualification.

8.3. From the facts stated above, submissions

canvassed, averments made and the undisputed facts noted

above, this Court finds that the petitioner does not possess

the required qualification as per the advertisement for the

post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Class-I) in

question. The authorities have rightly rejected the claim of

the petitioner. Every recruitment process is an individual

process and cannot be compared with any other process

either of the State Government or of the Central

Government.

9. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajid Khan

versus L. Rahmathullah reported in MANU/SC/0247/2025,

more particularly Paras : 18 to 21 thereof, which read as

under.

"18. In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the appellants and there is no apparent or glaring difference

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

in the qualifications, we see no reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence. This Court has stated the same in categorical terms in its decision Anand Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 390. :

32. We may also notice another important aspect i.e. the employer ultimately being the best judge of who should be appointed. The choice was of Respondent 2 who sought the assistance of an expert committee in view of the representation of some of the appellants.

The eminence of the expert committee is apparent from its composition. That committee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand taken by the appellants, and Respondent 2 as employer decided to concur with the same and accepted the committee's opinion. It is really not for the appellants or the contesting respondent to contend how and in what manner a degree should be obtained, which would

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

make them eligible for appointment by Respondent 2. (emphasis supplied)

19. The recruiting authority has scrutinised

the qualifications before deciding that they satisfy what is enumerated in the advertisement. It is not the case of the respondents that the authority in the present case has not applied its mind in scrutinising the appellants diplomas. In Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86. this Court had an occasion to consider the approach to be adopted by the recruiting agency/employer while considering the issue of equivalence of qualifications and directed as under:

59. The equivalence of qualification as claimed by a candidate is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer. It is the recruiting agency which has to be satisfied as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of qualification is fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

job. It is the recruiting agency who is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate as to whether a candidate is eligible and entitled to participate in the selection.

More so when the advertisement clearly contemplates that certificate concerning the qualification shall be scrutinised, it was the duty and obligation of the recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or self-declaration by a candidate that his computer qualification is equivalent to CCC has neither been envisaged in the advertisement nor can be said to be fulfilling the eligibility condition. (emphasis supplied)

20. Similarly, in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362. it was held that :

9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.

21. Though there a number of decisions on this very principle, Mohd Shujat Ali v.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76; Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 (2) SCC 55; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 . we will conclude with a recent decision of this Court in Union of India v Uzair Imran, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308 . emphasizing the restraint a court must exercise while determining equivalence between qualifications. The relevant portion is as under :

14. Normally, it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular certificate and say, on the basis of its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received from interested candidates or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to participate in the selection process. It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence. (emphasis supplied)"

9.1. It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hiteshbhai

Bhikhabhai Vyas versus State of Gujarat reported in 2012

SCC OnLine Guj. 4883, more particularly, para : 10 thereof,

which reads as under :

"10. In catena of decisions, the Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that employer has absolute discretion to prescribe the required educational qualification and experience to ensure selection of suitable candidates. Court is having limited scope of judicial review when Government policy or administrative action is under challenge, as court is not the appellate authority and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

Constitution does not permit the court to interfere in matters of policy unless and until one or the other legal or fundamental right of the citizen is violated. It is always open to the recruiting agency to prescribe eligibility criteria."

9.2. It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV

versus Union of India reported in (2023) 18 SCC 546, more

particularly para : 7 thereof, which reads as under.

"7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors, (2019) 2 SCC 404 it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

recruiting authority, to determine.

(Emphasis supplied)"

9.3. It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shifana P.S. versus

The State of Kerala reported in 2024 INSC 580, more

particularly para : 14 thereof, which reads as under.

"14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the 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. (emphasis supplied) "

10. From the above referred judgments, it is clear that

the equivalence of qualification is not a matter that can be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4518/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

determined by the Courts. It is for the recruiting authority to

determine whether a particular qualification can be regarded

as equivalent or not. In the case on hand, the requirements

prescribe that the candidate should possess either the

qualification prescribed or qualification which is declared to

be equivalent to the required qualification, which is

recognised by the State Government and the qualification of