Sudheer Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7821 MP

                                      1          Writ Appeal No.763 of 2021

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                               BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                  &
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

                     WRIT APPEAL No. 763 of 2021

     Between:-
     SUDHEER SHARMA S/O SATISHCHANDRA
     SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: FARMING 84-A, SURYADEV
     NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....APPELLANT
     (BY SHRI R. R. TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE )

     AND

     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
1.   PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
     DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
2.   GAUTAM    NAGAR,     BHOPAL    (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
     CONTROLLER PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION
3.   BOARD, BHOPAL CHINAR PARK EAST BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
     DISTRICT                     EDUCATION
4.   OFFICER/VERIFICATION    OFFICER    DEO
     NURSINGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAVA, A.A.G)
________________________________________________________
       Reserved on      :           19/04/2022

    Delivered on   :         15/06/2022
________________________________________________________
     This appeal coming on for judgment this day, JUSTICE
SUBODH ABHYANKAR passed the following:

                            JUDGEMENT

Per:- Subodh Abhyankar, J.

1] This writ appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 and the rules made thereunder against the order passed in W.P. No.13047 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021 whereby the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition wherein the petitioner/appellant had challenged the order dated 14.06.2021, passed by the respondent No.4 District Education Officer, Narsinghpur whereby the candidature of the appellant for the post of Middle School Teacher has been rejected on the ground that he does not possess the graduation degree with English Literature.

2] In brief, the facts as have been recorded by the learned Judge of the writ Court are as under:-

"The petitioner is possessing the degree of Bachelor of Business Administration from Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, thereafter, he passed the examination of Bachelor of Education and did the Master of Arts in English subject in the year 2013-14.

The Professional Examination Board invited online application for participation in Middle School Teacher eligibility test 2018. The petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of middle school teacher and opted English Language as the primary language for the post of Language Teacher. The minimum educational qualification is 50% marks in the graduation in relevant subject. Since the petitioner is possessing Bachelor of Business Administration and Bachelor in Education stream, he applied for the said post. He appeared in the eligibility test and he was declared qualified by securing 110.95 marks with rank of 552 in the unversed(sic) category. After declaration of the aforesaid result, the petitioner was called for verification of the documents. On 14.06.2021, the respondent No.4 has put the objection that the petitioner does not possess the Bachelor degree with English Literature. Hence, the present petition before this Court."

3] Shri R. R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge of the writ Court has erred in not considering the fact that in the eligibility criteria of the advertisement, the only requirement was graduation with 50% in the concerned subject.

4] Counsel has also submitted that admittedly the appellant is a Bachelor of Business Administration with subject English as one of the subjects in the first semester and a degree of B.Ed., however, he has also completed his M.A. in English and thus, cannot be said to be unqualified for the post of Middle School Teacher - English. In support of his contention, Shri Trivedi has also relied a upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported as (2015) 17 SCC 709 wherein the appellant's qualification was M.Sc. (Forestry) whereas the requirement was of B.Sc. in Forestry and thus, the Supreme Court has found favour with the appellant's case and it is held that in case of any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement, the same ought to have been clarified by the authority in the advertisement itself and in case it was not clarified, benefit should go to the candidate.

5] Counsel has also relied upon another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another reported as (2013) 15 SCC 557 (para 11).

6] Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Serial No.2 of Schedule - III of Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre), Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Rules, 2018') wherein the Educational qualification for 'Madhyamik Shikshak', inter alia is Bachelor's Degree in the relevant subject with at least 50% marks and one year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.),.

7] Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the appellant does not possess the requisite qualification of holding a Bachelor Degree in

English, whereas the advertisement itself was clear that the incumbents must have done the graduation with 50% marks in the relevant subjects and the relevant subject being the English, it cannot be said that even if a person who has done his graduation in Bachelor of Business Administration after having two subjects of English Language in the first semester would also be entitled to claim that he is graduate in English. So far as the Post- graduation degree of the appellant is concerned, which is M.A. in English, it certainly cannot be taken to be the fulfillment of the eligibility criteria especially when the incumbent candidate is required to teach the Middle School Class for which elementary English is necessary, whereas in the M.A. English the emphasis is on literature, which is also apparent from the mark-sheet of the appellant. Thus, it is submitted that the appellant is not fit to teach in Middle School and the learned Judge of the writ Court has committed no error in rejecting the appellant's claim.

8] Shri Bhargava has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others reported as (2019) 2 SCC 404 (paras 26 and 27) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification, such inference cannot be drawn. 9] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10] From the record, it is apparent that so far as the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement is concerned, the relevant excerpts of the same read as under:-

"7- fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ¼1½ ek/;fed f'k{kd ds fy, 'kS{kf.kd ,oa f'k{k.k izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rk fuEufyf[kr vuqlkj gksxh %& ¼v½ lacaf/kr fo"k; esa Lukrd mikf/k rFkk izkjafHkd f'k{kk esa nks o"khZ; fMIyksek vFkok mlds led{k vFkok

lacaf/kr fo"k; esa de ls de 50 izfr'kr vadks ds lkFk Lukrd mikf/k rFkk f'k{kk 'kkL= esa ,d o"khZ; Lukrd mikf/k ¼ch-,M-½ .......................................

¼c½ ....................................... (2) .........................................

11] So far as the Rules, 2018 are concerned, it provides for the eligibility criteria of a Middle School Teacher to be, inter alia, Bachelor's Degree in the relevant subject with at least 50% marks and one year Bachelor in Education. On perusal of the aforesaid condition of the advertisement and the relevant Rules, 2018, there is no doubt in the minds of this Court that the appellant being a graduate in business administration with English as one of the subjects in the first semester only, cannot be held to be falling within the eligibility criteria of the advertisement.

12] So far as the appellant's post-graduation in M.A. is concerned, this Court again finds force with the contentions raised by Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava that merely because a person is more qualified than the requirement, it would not presuppose his entitlement for the appointment of the post. The Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Ratheer and others (supra) after referring to catena of decisions on the point, in paras 26 and 27 has held as under:-

"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). 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 pre-supposes 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 was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge 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."

(emphasis supplied) 13] Testing on the anvil of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, the facts of this case, this Court finds no error or illegality committed by the learned Judge of the writ Court in passing the impugned order. The advertisement as also the Rules are clear about the eligibility criterion, i.e., Bachelor's degree in the concerned subject, and if a candidate is opting for English language, English must be his or her's predominant subject in the Bachelor's program whereas, in the case on hand, the petitioner obtained his bachelor's degree in business administration with English as one of the subjects in the first semester only which is not the due qualification as per the advertisement or the Rules, 2018.

14] Reflecting upon the factual merits of the case, it is also found that the subjects which the petitioner has studied in his post-graduation in English i.e., in M.A., predominantly refer to the literature only and there is absolutely no such subject which may be said to be related to the elementary English, the reasonable knowledge of which is necessary for a teacher, which is also the requirement of middle school students who aew still learning about the language only and not its literature. 15] Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

                  (Subodh Abhyankar)             (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
                       Judge                            Judge

Pankaj
Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANDEY
Date: 2022.06.15 17:14:11 +05'30'