Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deeprani Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12627
1 WP-2835-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2835 of 2025
DEEPRANI GARG AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chauhan - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri B.D. Singh - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
1. Petitioners by the subject petition seek quashing of the educational
qualification prescribed by the Gazette Notification dated 27.06.2017 and the
advertisement issued for recruitment dated 31.12.2024. Petitioners are
concerned for the Direct Recruitment post of District Public Health Nurse
Officer.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the educational
qualification prescribed would require the candidates to have a double Post
Graduate Degree. He further submits that the prescribed educational
qualification is confusing and does not clarify as to whether the Degree or
Diploma of Hospital Management etc. is required only by B.Sc. Nursing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12627
2 WP-2835-2025
candidates or candidates possessing M.Sc. Nursing Degree as well. Further,
he submits that the qualification prescribed is far higher than what is required
for the said post and petitioners have been functioning on the said post for
over 10 years.
3. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that
M.Sc. Nursing and B.Sc. Nursing for the said post has been treated at par and
the educational qualification prescribed in addition to M.Sc. Nursing and
B.Sc. Nursing is Degree or Diploma of Hospital Management
and Administration or Post Graduate Diploma in Public Health Management
by regular course. He further submits that it is for the Recruiting Authority to
prescribe the qualification for a particular post and candidates cannot contend
that the qualification prescribed is higher than the requirement for a particular
post and a reference may be held to Schedule-III to the Gazette Notification
dated 27.06.2017 which prescribed the educational qualifications for the post
of District Public Health Nurse Officer as under :
SCHEDULE-III
(see rule 8)
Age and Qualification of persons for direct recruitment
Group -"C" - Nursing Services
Minimum
Name of Maximum
S.N. Age Prescribed Education Qualification Remarks
Post Age limit
limit
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. Ten years experience in Nursing Services
(Under the Public Health and Family
District Welfare Department)
Public
1. Health 28 years 40 years 2.M.Sc. Nursing/B.Sc. Nursing with Degree
Nurse or Diploma of Hospital Management and
Officer Administration or Post Graduate Diploma
in Public Health Management by a regular
course.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12627
3 WP-2835-2025
4. The contention of the respondents is that the requirement of Degree or
Diploma of Hospital Management and Administration or Post Graduate
Diploma in Public Health Management by a regular course is additionally
required for all candidates possessing either M.Sc. Nursing or B.Sc. Nursing
Degrees.
5. We note that in the Gazette Notification for most of the promotional
posts of Deputy Director, Nursing Division Level, Principal Public Health
Orientation Training Centre, District Public Health Nurse Officer/Nursing
Superintendent, Principal Lady Health Visitor, the qualifications prescribed
are "M.Sc. Nursing /B.Sc. Nursing/...........", which clearly signifies that for
all posts the notification treats M.Sc. Nursing at par with B.Sc. Nursing. It is
only in the subject post that there is a qualification to "M.Sc. Nursing and
B.Sc. Nursing" for an additional requirement of "Degree or Diploma of
Hospital Management and Administration or Post Graduate Diploma in
Public Health Management by a regular course". Clearly, the additional
qualification is prescribed for candidates possessing either B.Sc. Nursing or
M.Sc. Nursing.
6. We may further note that the post of District Public Health Nurse Officer
is to be filled both by way of Direct Recruitment as well as by promotion.
Additional qualification has been prescribed in the cases of Direct
Recruitment for the case of intra departmental promotion there is no such
additional qualification prescribed.
7. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12627
4 WP-2835-2025
Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors.; (2019) 2
SCC 404, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
26.***** 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.*****
8. The Supreme Court in Zahoor's case held that the employer has the
authority to prescribe qualifications for a post as a recruitment policy.
Judicial review cannot expand upon the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications.
9. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court of
India in Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram
Warade; (2019) 6 SCC 362, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
"9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for
the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the
employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate
must possess according to the needs of the employer and the
nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of
eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to
desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility
by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of
equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If
the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court
cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in
the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter
has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders,
to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the
garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority
to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions
of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12627
5 WP-2835-2025
10. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Sandeep Shriram (supra) has
held that the employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications,
including any grant of preference. It is the employer, who is the best suited to
decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of
the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the
conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to
desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an
interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. In no case can the Court, in the
garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide
what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the
advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
11. It is open to the petitioners to apply for any post that the petitioners
may be qualified, keeping in view their educational qualification and
experience. In view of the above, we find no ground to hold that the
educational qualification prescribed by the impugned notification and the
impugned advertisement is erroneous or require any interference.
12. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is,
consequently, dismissed.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
m/-
