Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Shrivas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
1 WP No.3299/2017
& WP No.9015/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3299 of 2017
JITENDRA BARKHANE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Singh Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ankita Khare - PL for the respondents / State.
WRIT PETITION No. 9015 of 2017
RAHUL SHRIVAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harsh Wardhan Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ankita Khare - PL for the respondents / State
ORDER
As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical,
therefore, both the petitions are being heard together and disposed of by
this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of WP No.3299/2017
are taken up. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) Hon'ble Court issued the appropriate writ
and directed to respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
(ii) Hon'ble Court passed the order and directed
to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner
and issue appointment order to the petitioner.
(iii) Any other relief which deem and proper.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.02.2016 the
respondents issued an advertisement for the post of Draftsman for the
Forest Department inviting applications Online through the Professional
Examination Board Portal. The petitioner submitted online application for
the post of Draftsman on 20.2.2016 through the MP Online. Admit card
was issued for Online Examination. The petitioner participated in the
examination conducted by the Board. Respondent no. 2 issued a letter
dated 21.7.2016 to all the Chief Conservator of Forest of M.P. for
verification of the documents of the candidates qualifying for the post of
Draftsman before making appointment on the said post. Respondent no. 3
vide letter dated 26.7.2016 directed the respondent no. 4 to call all the
qualified candidates for verification of the documents and thereafter,
appointment letter be issued to the qualified candidates. Respondent no. 4
called the petitioner for documents verification, upon which, the
petitioner appeared and submitted all the documents including B. E.
(Mechanical Engineering) I Semester and III Semester Mark sheets, the
subject related to Draftsman work, Engineering Graphics and Machine
Drawing & Design which is subject of B.E. (Mechanical Engineering).
The petitioner is having certificate of Advanced Course in CAD/ CAM
provided by the Indo-German Tool Room, Indore being extra
qualification. The syllabus of the Engineering Graphics and Machine
Drawing & Design is similar and equivalent to the requisite qualification
for draftsman.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
4. It is argued that in the Madhya Pradesh, M.P. Junior Service
(Common Eligibility) Test Rule, 2013, qualification for the post of
Draftsman is determined as High School / Higher Secondary (10+2) with
Engineering three years Degree or Diploma. It is argued that the
petitioner is having higher qualifications and is having B.E. (Mechanical
Engineering). Under these circumstances, the case of the petitioner was
on better footing than the other candidates who were having less
qualification, therefore, the case of the petitioner should have been
considered by the authorities for grant of appointment on the post in
question.
5. In W.P. No.9015/2017, it is the contention of the petitioner
that the petitioner is having B. E. (Electrical & Electronics Engineering)
Degree in the year 2012 and also possessing Draftsman specific course
and having experience of it along with PGDCA. The petitioner
participated in Sub-Engineer (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) and Draftsman
Recruitment Test, 2016 and qualified the examination. On 26.7.2016 a
letter was issued to the petitioner by the office of Respondent no. 3
regarding verification of documents for appointment for the post of
Draftsman and directed to remain present on 5.8.2016. The petitioner
appeared before the office of Respondent no. 3 on 5.8.2016 and
completed all the requisite formalities but till date the petitioner has not
been given appointment on the post in question.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and
others passed in Civil Appeal No.13368 of 2015 (arising out of SLP (C )
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
No. 26131/2013) decided on 6.11.2015, in which, it has been held as
under :-
"24. In our considered view, firstly, if there was
any ambiguity or vagueness notices in prescribing
the qualification in the advertisement, then it
should have been clarified by the authority
concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if
it was not clarified, then benefit should have been
given to the candidate rather than to the
respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that there was
no ambiguity or/ and any vagueness yet we find
that the Appellant was admittedly having B. Sc.
Degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects
in his graduation and further he was also having
masters degree in Forestry, i.e., M. Sc. (forestry).
In the light of these facts, we are of the view that
the Appellant was possessed of the prescribed
qualification to apply for the post in question and
his application could not have been rejected
treating him to be an ineligible candidate for not
possessing prescribed qualification."
7. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the
respondents authorities denying the averments made in the writ petition.
It is argued that the petitioner had duly participated in the examination
and now, he is debarred from challenging the conditions of the
Draftsman. It is further contended that the qualification for the post of
Draftsman (Forest) as required is (A) Old Higher Secondary pass or (B)
10+2 High School Examination pass Intermediate certificate in
elementary drawing from J.J. School of Arts Mumbai or a certificate of
draftsmanship from the recognized industrial training institutes or have
taken the training in photography from Survey of India, Hyderabad.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
Admittedly, the petitioner is having more qualification as
required but the law with respect to aforesaid is that the qualification
which is required in the advertisement whether the candidate is having
that qualification or not and in case, the candidates are having similar
qualification as required then they are to be given preference. It is not the
case of the petitioner that other candidates who are having more
qualifications as required in the advertisement have already been given
appointment; therefore, no benefit could have been extended to the
petitioner, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Admitted position as reflected from the petition is that the
petitioner is virtually claiming equivalence in the qualification as
prescribed under Class-III (Non-ministerial) Forest Recruitment Rules,
1999.
10. This Court vide order dated 1.3.2023 has taken note of the
aforesaid and has observed as under :-
"The contention of petitioner appears to be that
for appointment to the post of Draftsman in the
Forest Department under the Government of M.P.
the qualification held by the petitioner, is similar to
prescribed qualification under the Class III (Non-
Ministerial) Forest Recruitment Rules, 1999 and,
therefore, denial of appointment to the said post to
petitioner is unjustified.
The petitioner in fact is asking this Court to
declare a particular similar qualification to be
equivalent to the one prescribed under the Rules of
1999. Prima facie, it does not appear that
contention of petitioner is tenable in view of
decision of Apex Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali
& Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 76,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
which was subsequently followed by Apex Court
in J. Ranga Swamy vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 288, State of
Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lata Arun (2002) 6 SCC 252,
Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz
Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404 and Devender
Bhaskar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. in
Civil Appeal No.7031/2021.
However, since arguing counsel is informed
to be not well, list after two weeks."
11. The petitioner has sought time to clarify the aforesaid stand.
Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner
was directed to argue in the light of the order dated 1.3.2023 but he has
not advanced any argument in this regard. However, he claims that he is
B.E. qualified and having more qualifications as required for the post in
question, therefore, the case of the petitioner should have been
considered.
12. The law with respect to required minimum qualification in
terms of the advertisement and Rules has already been settled by the
Supreme Court in large number of cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz
Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 held in para 26 as follows:-
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the
interpretation which has been placed on the
judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 :
160 (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent
decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015)
2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329]. The
decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public
Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013)
3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
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 K.K. [Jyoti K.K.
v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15
SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] 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 [Imtiyaz Ahmad v.
Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of
2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High
Court was justified in reversing the judgment
[Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC
OnLine J&K 936] 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 [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor
Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division
Bench."
(b) Therein also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the State is entitled to prescribe the
qualification as a condition of eligibility and
judicial review is not permissible to expand the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
ambit of the prescribed qualification. Similarly,
equivalence or non-equivalence of a qualification
is not a matter which can be decided 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 to determine
and not for the court. The absence of a requirement
of a higher qualification being 161 absent, cannot
presuppose acquisition of a lower qualification.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of the
petitioners cannot be accepted."
13. It is a settled proposition of law that the qualification which is
required in the advertisement should be possessed by the candidates.
Recently, the Supreme court in the case of Jyoti K.K. and others vs.
Kerala Public Service Commission and others (2010) 15 SCC 596 has
observed as under :-
"7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High
Court that when a qualification has been set
out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot
be in any manner whittled down and a
different qualification cannot be adopted. The
High Court is also justified in stating that the
higher qualification must clearly indicate or
presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for that post in order
to attract that part of the Rule to the effect
that such of those higher qualifications which
presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for the post shall
also be sufficient for the post. If a person has
acquired higher qualifications in the same
Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be
stated to presuppose the acquisition of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In
this case it may not be necessary to seek far.
8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of
Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical
Engineering of Kerala University or other
equivalent qualification recognised or
equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a
higher post when a direct recruitment has to
be held, the qualification that has to be
obtained, obviously gives an indication that
such qualification is definitely higher
qualification than what is prescribed for the
lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer.
In that view of the matter the qualification of
degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes
the acquisition of the lower qualification of
diploma in that subject prescribed for the
post, shall be considered to be sufficient for
that post."
14. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, if
the case of the petitioner is analyzed, then the advertisement which was
issued, in which, relevant clause 6 is as under:-
6. कायालय धान मु य वन संर क सतपुडा मदन, भोपाल (म. .)
कायालय धान मु य वन संर क सतपुडा भवन, शाखा शासन-11 भोपाल
(म. .) के प मांक शा. 11/मु य. था/481 भोपाल, दनांक 29/01/2016
के अनुसार र त पद क जानकार िन नानुसार है
सीधी भत - मानिच कार - कुल 88 पद क आर ण तािलका-
स . ण
े ी िनल भूतपूव सैिनक योग वकलांग
ओपन म हला ओपन म हला
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
1. अनार त 52 00 04 00 56 िन: श तजन
क कुल 04
र य म से
04 पद
अ थबािधत
िन: श तजन
हे तु आर त है ।
जस ण
े ी का
िन: श तजन
इन पद के िलये
चयिनत होगा
2. अनुसूिचत 08 00 02 00 10 उसे उसी ण
े ी
जाित हे तु मा य कया
3. अनुसूिचत 11 00 00 00 11 जायेगा। यह पद
जनजाित येक ण
े ी क
बना वग/ओपन
र य म
समा हत है ।
4. अ य 09 00 02 00 11
पछड़ा वग
योग 80 00 08 00 88
वेतनमान - 5200-20200+2400 ेड पे
शै णक यो यता - (क) उ चतर मा यिमक पर ा उ तीण अथवा (ख)
10+2 पर ा उ तीण क हो। (ग) जे.जे. कूल ऑफ आ स मु बई से
ारं िभक (एलीम ) ाइं ग म इं टर मी डयट माण प या मा यता ापत
औ ोिगक िश ण सं थान से मानिच कार का माण प ा त कया हो,
या सवऑफ इं डया है दराबाद से फोटो ाफ वषय म िश ण ा त कया हो।
15. Admittedly, the petitioner is B.E. (Mechanical Engineering)
and is having higher qualification than as required in the advertisement.
Even otherwise, the petitioner has admitted the conditions and
qualifications required for the post of Draftsman in terms of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4362
advertisement issued and duly participated in the recruitment drive.
Without there being any challenge to such qualifications mentioned
therein and when he was declared unsuccessful, he has chosen to file writ
petition before this Court. The petitioner is virtually asking for treating
the said qualification as mentioned in the document (Annexure-P/1
Clause 6) for the post of Draftsman to be equivalent to that of B. E.
(Mechanical Engineering), the same cannot be equated. It is settled law
that if the candidates having the said qualification as required in the
advertisement are available, the weightage should be given to such
candidates for the same and should be considered for grant of
appointment on the post in question. Under these circumstances, no relief
can be extended to the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, petition bearing WP No.3299/2017 being sans
merit and is dismissed.
17. In the light of the detailed order passed in WP No.3299/2017,
connected W.P.No.9015/2017 is also dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE,
JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a, postalCode=482001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B19143AD99, cn=JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2025.02.11 11:19:38 +05'30'
JP
