Jharkhand High Court
Vincent Bhengra vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 1327 of 2019
----------
Vincent Bhengra ............ Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.
............ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, AC to SC
For the JSSC : M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar,
Rakesh Ranjan, Advocates
----------
06/ 16.08.2023 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing
and setting aside the communication dated 11.02.2019 by which the
candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher has
been rejected on the ground that petitioner does not fulfil the
eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause- 4 (kha) of the Advertisement.
Further prayer has been made by the petitioner for direction
upon the respondents to appoint him to the post of Assistant Teacher
as he comes within the zone of consideration having qualified in all
the events of examination.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that as per Advertisement, the appointment was to be made
in the subject of English but the petitioner was having the degree of
B.A. Hons in Functional English.
4. Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State submits that in view of several judicial
pronouncements, appointment could not be made to the post in which
a candidate having the degree in a subject other than the subject
specified in the advertisement.
5. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, settled propositions of law and further in view of the admitted
fact that petitioner has passed B.A. Hons. with Functional English
where the appointment was to be made for the subject of English
language, rightly the case of the petitioner was not considered.
6. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S).
No. 4079 of 2018 (Santosh Kumar Yadav and another Vrs. the
State of Jharkhand and others) and other analogous cases,
disposed of on 20.09.2019, which has been affirmed upto the Hon'ble
Apex Court in its judgment reported in case of Indresh Kumar
Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 42. This
Court in the aforesaid case has held as under::
"28. It is well settled law that the question of
equivalence of educational qualification is not within
the domain and jurisdiction of the Court under Article
226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, it has to be
done by a body of academicians or an expert body
qualified for that job, as such, this Court cannot
consider and hold one educational qualification to be
equivalent to other qualifications. In this respect, in
umpteen number of cases the Supreme Court has
observed that it is not within the scope of judicial
review to draw equivalence of qualification. Drawing
of equivalence of qualification is essentially the job of
experts of the field and it is not for the Court to enter
into the arena of comparing two qualifications on
certain parameters and then to declare equivalence.
29. I am in agreement with the submission on behalf
of learned counsel appearing for JSSC as well as
State Counsel that the nomenclature of the two
courses being different there has to be difference in
the nature of study and knowledge imparted in the two
disciplines, course content, qualifications acquired
etc. It is not open for the Court in academic matters to
declare equivalence of courses as may have been
advertised by the employer. Concludingly, equivalence
of educational qualification is purely a technical
academic matter and it has to be done by appropriate
authority/expert that too by specific order duly
published prior to initiation of recruitment process.
30. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid
discussions, I do not find any illegality or
arbitrariness in action of the respondents in holding
the petitioners ineligible for the concerned posts. I do
not find any interference is warranted in the writ
petitions preferred by the petitioners. Accordingly, all
the writ petitions stand dismissed."
7. In absence of having the requisite qualification as per the rules,
rightly the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and at this stage,
no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is
hereby dismissed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal
