Karnataka High Court
Nagaratna vs The High Court Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 November, 2021
Bench: M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.202089/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
NAGARATNA D/O AMRUTH MANKAR,
AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC : UNEMPLOYED,
R/O BASAVA NAGAR,
NEAR BASAVA SAMITHI SCHOOL,
SHANTI NAGAR, BHANKUR,
TQ : SHAHABAD, DIST : KALABURAGI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BY IT'S REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT, BENGALURU.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS
(SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C.BASAREDDY, HCGP FOR R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECEIVE THE APPLICATION OF
THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF TYPIST IN
PURSUANCE OF HIS NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.HCRB/TYP-10/2021 DATED 27.10.2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, DECLARING THAT THE QUALIFICATION OF
DEGREE IN B.E, MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF MINIMUM
QUALIFICATION AS PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID
NOTIFICATION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Typist in
the High Court of Karnataka. The respondent No.1 has
called for recruitment for the post of Typist vide
notification bearing No.HCRB/TYP-10/2021 dated
27.10.2021. The petitioner is a graduate in Engineering
and she has completed her Bachelor of Engineering
(Instrumentation Technology) [B.E. (IT)] in the year 2015
by securing first class. The petitioner has also passed
Kannada and English Typewriting senior. The candidature
of the petitioner is rejected by respondent No.1 on the
ground that only a candidate possessing a Degree in
Science/Arts/Commerce/Business Management/Computer
Applications of a Recognized University with a minimum of
55% marks is eligible for applying and not a candidate who
has graduated in B.E. Aggrieved by the same, the instant
writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
(i) "A writ of mandamus directing the Respondent
No.1 to receive the application of the petitioner
for the post of Typist in pursuance of his
notification bearing No.HCRB/TYP-10/2021
dated 27-10-2021 vide Annexure - A, declaring
that the qualification of degree in B.E. meets
the requirement of minimum qualification as
prescribed in the said notification, in the
interest of justice and equity.
(ii) In the alternative issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the notification of the respondent
No.1 bearing No.HCRB/TYP-10/2021 dated 27-
10-2021 vide Annexure - A, in so far as
prescribing minimum qualification at Item No.2
(1) is concerned, in the interest of justice and
equity;
(iii) Pass any other order or direction as the
Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of
the case."
2. In the course of the arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioner has stated that he is not pressing for the
second prayer as the vires to the rules has not been
challenged and he may be reserved liberty to challenge the
same, if the instant writ petition were to fail.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the relevant
rules fixes only a minimum qualification for applying to a
post of Typist and that the petitioner being a graduate in
Engineering possess the higher qualification than what is
prescribed as Engineering is to be considered as a degree
in Science. In support of his contention, he has placed his
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Deep
Chandra Tewari and another reported in (2013) 15
Supreme Court Cases 557, paragraph 11 of the
judgment reads as under:-
"We are conscious of the principle that
when particular qualifications are prescribed
for a post, the candidature of a candidate
possessing higher qualification cannot be
rejected on that basis. No doubt, normal rule
would be that candidate with higher
qualification is deemed to fulfill the lower
qualification prescribed for a post. But that
higher qualification has to be in the same
channel. Further, this rule will be subject to an
exception. Where the prescription of a
particular qualification is found to be relevant
for discharging the functions of that post and
at the same time, the Government is able to
demonstrate that for want of the said
qualification a candidate may not be suitable
for the post, even if he possesses a "better"
qualification but that "better" qualification has
no relevance with the functions attached with
the post."
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 submits that it is a prerogative of the
employer to fix necessary qualification for any post. It is
the employer alone who can determine the qualification
and its equivalence. It is purely an administrative function
and Court should not replace its opinion in the place of the
employer's and it should not sit as an Appellate Authority
over the decision of the employer. He further submits that
respondent No.1 has prescribed the minimum qualification
for the post of Typist as under:-
"1) Minimum Qualification shall be a
Degree in Science/Arts/Commerce/Business
Management/Computer Applications of a
Recognized University with minimum of 55%
marks in the aggregate for candidates
belonging to General Category and Other
Backward Categories and a minimum of 50%
marks in the aggregate for candidates
belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes.
2) Should have passed Senior Grade
Typewriting Examination in English and
Kannada with knowledge of operation of
Computers."
He contends, what is prescribed is that a minimum
qualification shall be a Degree in Science/Arts/Commerce/
Business Management/Computer Applications from a
Recognized University and a Degree in Engineering is not
considered equivalent with of a Degree in Science by the
employer and hence, it has decided to reject the
candidature of the petitioner.
5. In this regard, the respondent No.1 relies upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahoor
Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad
and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404, wherein,
paragraphs 26 and 27 reads as under:-
"26. We are in respectful agreement
with the interpretation which has been placed
on the judgment in Jyoti KK v. Kerala Public
Service Commissioner, (2010) 15 SCC 596 in
the subsequent decision in State of Punjab v.
Anitha, (2015) 2 SCC 170. The decision in Jyoti
KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii).
Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible
to draw an inference that a higher qualification
necessarily presupposes the acquisition of
another, albeit lower, qualification. The
prescription of qualifications for a post is a
matter of recruitment policy. The state as the
employer is entitled to prescribe the
qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is
no part of the role or function of judicial review
to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a
qualification is not a matter which can be
determined in 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. The decision in Jyoti
KK turned on a specific statutory rule under
which the holding of a higher qualification
could presuppose the acquisition of a lower
qualification. The absence of such a rule in the
present case makes a crucial difference to the
ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter,
the Division Bench of the High Court in Imtiyaz
Ahamad vs. Zahoor Ahamad Rather, LPA (SW)
No.135 of 2017 dated 12.10.2017 (J&K) was
justified in reversing the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in Zahoor Ahamad Rather
v. State of J & K, (2017 SCC Online J & K 936)
and in coming to the conclusion that the
appellants did not meet the prescribed
qualifications. We find no error in the decision
of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications
for a post, the State, as employer, may
legitimately bear in mind several features
including the nature of the job, the aptitudes
requisite for the efficient discharge of duties,
the functionality of a qualification and the
content of the course of studies which leads up
to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is
entrusted with the authority to assess the
needs of its public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall within the
domain of administrative decision-making. The
state as a public employer may well take into
account social perspectives that require the
creation of job opportunities across the societal
structure. All these are essentially matters of
policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That
is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be
understood in the context of a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification which presupposes the
acquisition of a lower qualification was
considered to be sufficient for the post. It was
in the context of specific rule that the decision
in Jyoti KK turned."
6. He further has placed reliance upon the decision
of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in
W.A.No.509/2020 dated 30.03.2021 where, whether a
degree in B.E. is a Degree in Science has been
considered and in paragraph 9 of the judgment, it has
been held as under:-
"9. In the light of the Judgment
delivered in the case of Zahoor Ahmed
(supra) as the respondents are not holding
the qualification i.e, Bachelor degree in
Science, though they do possess Bachelors
degree in Engineering, the qualification
prescribed for the post of 'Assistant (Clerk)' is
only a graduation and therefore, the learned
Single Judge has erred in law and facts in
allowing the writ petition. The Appointing
Authority keeping in view the Recruitment
Rules invites an application for a post and it is
a purely the domain of the employer to frame
the Recruitment Rules and the prescription of
qualification for a post is a matter of
recruitment policy. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the State, as a public
employer, has to take into account social
perspectives that require creation of job
opportunities across the societal structure.
The Courts are not the expert bodies who can
give a finding that Bachelors degree in
Engineering has to be treated equivalent to a
degree in Science. It is for the expert bodies
like the University Grant Commission to arrive
at such a finding and therefore, as the
qualification required for the post in question
was graduation in science, the appeal
preferred by the employer deserves to be
allowed and is, accordingly allowed. The
Judgment dated 03.09.2020 passed by the
learned Single Judge is hereby set-aside."
7. Under the said circumstances, from the
aforementioned judgment passed in W.A.509/2020 dated
30.03.2021, a Degree in Bachelor of Engineering cannot be
considered as a Degree in Science for the purposes of
interpreting the qualification prescribed for the post of a
Typist in first respondent's organization. For the said
grounds, the writ petition deserves to be rejected and
accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
MH/-
