Jharkhand High Court
Sumanta Kumar Mishra Son Of Nirantar Ram ... vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 13 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6757 of 2024
Sumanta Kumar Mishra son of Nirantar Ram Mishra, resident of Purana Kharna,
Deoghar, P.O. Fulchuwan P.S. Sarath, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand- 814 149.
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh
Road, P.O and P.S. Jorbagh, New Delhi- 110003.
2. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Forest Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand, Doranda,
Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834002.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road,
Lalpur, Ranchi-834001.
4. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834004.
.... Respondent(s).
-----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s): M/s Rituraj and Anurag Krishan Tiwary, Advocates.
For the JPSC: M/s Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rajiesh Ranjan
and Jay Prakash, Advocates.
For UOI: Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mrs. Niki Sinha, CGC
For the State: Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG.
------
4/13.01.2025: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon
the respondents to allow all the candidates belonging to different branches of
Engineering to appear in the Jharkhand Assistant Conservator of Forest
Examination, 2024 and Jharkhand Range Forest Service Examination, 2024 in
pursuance to the Advertisement Nos. 03/2024 and 04/2024, respectively in
terms of the provisions contained in the Entrance and Training Rules for the
State Forest Service, 2004 and the Entrance and Training Rules for the Forest
Range Officers, 2004 framed by the Central Government in consultations with
the State Governments concerned. A further prayed has been made to direct
the respondents to allow at least one month time from the last date of filling
the application forms so as to prepare for the preliminary tests for the
Advertisement Nos. 03/2024 and 04/2024, as the petitioner has exhausted his
precious time by running from pillars to post for filling the online forms for the
said examinations.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
B.Sc in Information Technology, thus he may be allowed to fill up the forms for
the said examinations and the respondents be directed to accept the same
and allow him to appear in the said examinations. He further submits that
B.Sc in Information Technology is equivalent to B.Sc (Computer Science). As
per him, since the degree which the petitioner is possessing, is equivalent to
the degree, which the respondents sought for and is also as per the Rules, the
petitioner is entitled for the benefit.
3. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the JPSC, submits that
the petitioner does not possess qualification as per the Advertisement, even
as per the Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed against the said
post. He further submits that the petitioner has not challenged the
Advertisement and without challenging the Advertisement the petitioner cannot
be granted any relief. So far as equivalence of qualification is concerned, he
submits that the degree of B.Sc in Information Technology is not equivalent to
the degree of B.Sc in Computer Science. The issue in respect of equivalence
cannot be decided by this Court. He lastly submits that last date for filling up
the forms was 30th August, 2024 and now the petitioner cannot be grant any
relief.
4. An Advertisement was published to fill up the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forest being Advertisement No. 03/2024 and Range Forest
Officer vide Advertisement No. 04/2024. So far as educational qualification is
concerned, for both the posts, it was same. The advertisement prescribed that
a candidate must hold a Bachelor's Degree with at least one of the subjects
namely Agriculture, Agriculture Engineering, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary
Sciences, Forestry, Botany, Chemistry, Geology, Mathematics, Physics,
Statistics, Zoology, Environmental Science or honours in related subjects or
Engineering Degree in Civil, Mechanical, Chemical from any recognized
Universities.
Admittedly the petitioner possesses a B.Sc degree in Information
Technology. The said subject i.e. Information Technology does not find place in
the educational eligibility criteria in the advertisement. The petitioner relies
upon the rules, which is at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said Rules are
framed by the Central Government. In the Central Government's Rules,
Clause 8 provides for educational qualifications, which are as follows:-
"8. Educational Qualification:-
Candidates must possess Bachelor's Degree (or equivalent) in
Science or Engineering of any recognized University with at least
in one of the following subjects:-
1. Agriculture
2. Botany
3. Chemistry
4. Computer Applications/Science
5. Engineering(Agricultural/Chemical/Civil/Computer/Electrical/Elect
ronics/Mechanical).
6. Environmental Science
7. Forestry
8. Geology
9. Horticulture
10. Mathematics
11. Physics
12. Statistics
13. Veterinary Science
14. Zoology.
5. The State Rule is at Annexure-1 to this writ petition and Clause
8(3) provides for educational qualifications. As per the State Rules, the
educational qualification is the same which has been published in the
Advertisement.
6. Since the advertisement is in consonance with the State Rules
and the educational qualification of B.Sc (Information Technology) is not
provided in the said Rules or in the Advertisements, the petitioner cannot claim
as a matter of right to appear in the said examination by filling up the forms.
7. So far as equivalence of degree is concerned, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. Vs. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 had held that
equivalence of qualification is not a matter which can be determined in
exercise of power of judicial review. Further it is well settled that the power is
given to the State Government to lay down the educational qualification for the
particular post. There is no deviation in the advertisement from the Rules,
which is apparent in this case. Further the advertisement where the
educational qualification has been prescribed, has also not been challenged
by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid judgment also, this Court cannot give
a declaration that B.Sc in Information Technology is equivalent to B.Sc. in
Computer Science.
8. No relief can be granted to the petitioner, accordingly, this petition
is dismissed.
Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J. )
