Md. Zahir Shah vs The State Of Manipur Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 68 Mani

                                                                 Page |1



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                          AT IMPHAL

                          WP(C) No. 721 of 2016

Md. Zahir Shah, aged about 28 years, S/o Md. Nijamuddin,
resident of Lilong Leihaokhong, P.O. & P.S. Lilong and
District Thoubal, Manipur.

                                                   -- -- -- Petitioner

                      - VERSUS -

1.    The     State       of   Manipur   through     the    Principal
      Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Home), Govt. of
      Manipur.

2.    The Department of Personnel and Administrative
      Reform, Govt. of Manipur through the Principal
      Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (DP), Govt. of
      Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.

3.    The Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Pangei,
      Govt. of Manipur, Imphal East, Manipur.

4.    The Manipur Public Service Commission through its
      Secretary (MPSC) Imphal, Manipur.
                                           -- -- -- Respondents

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 Page |2

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the petitioner :: Mr. Anjan Sahu, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Debendra, GA, Mr. I. Denning, Advocate.

Date of Hearing and
Reserving Judgment
& Order                        ::    27.01.2021

Date of Judgment & Order ::          17.03.2021


                   JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                         (CAV)

Since the Hon'ble Division Bench comprising of

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.Kotiswar Singh, the then Acting Chief

Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh, vide

judgment dated 16.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016,

expressed differing views, the matter has been placed before me.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to

set aside the impugned Recruitment Rules in respect of the post

of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and also impugned

advertisement in respect of the said post, as the same violate the

well established principle of law and to direct the respondents to

initiate the process for appointment to the post of Scientific

Assistant after the qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology) is

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 Page |3

incorporated in the essential qualifications and to exclude other

unrelated subjects from the rules such as Chemistry/Bio-

chemistry etc. and further amend the rules in such a way so as

to include other subjects as well in the relevant recruitment rules.

3. The writ petition was earlier listed before the

Division Bench comprising the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice

and Hon'ble Mr. justice Kh. Nobin Singh. By the judgment dated

6.11.2017, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin, dismissed the writ

petition and the operative portion of the judgment reads thus:

"6. As has been stated here-in-above in the

preceding para, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sanjay Kumar Manjul case (supra) has been

relied by upon by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner. The question raised in that case was

as to whether experience in Epigraphy may be

considered to be "field experience in Archaeology" or

not. The appellant therein was not impleaded as a

party in the writ petition which was allowed by the

High Court and therefore, he preferred an appeal

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a special

leave. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while allowing the

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 Page |4

appeal, has held that the statutory authority is entitled

to frame the statutory rules laying down the terms and

conditions of service as also the qualifications

essential for holding a particular post. It is only the

authority concerned which can take ultimate decision.

It has also been held that the superior courts while

exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of

the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an

employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a

particular post. This decision will not help the

petitioner at all but rather, the State Government.

Considering the materials on record, it can safely be

held that there is nothing wrong in the Recruitment

Rules, 2015. Having heard the learned counsels

appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that

the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is

accordingly liable to be dismissed.

7. For the reasons stated here-in-above, the writ

petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."

4. By separate judgment, the then Hon'ble Acting

Chief Justice allowed the writ petition holding as under:

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 Page |5

"24. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the

aforesaid new recruitment rules for the post of

Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) notified in 2015

suffers from the vice of unreasonableness and

arbitrariness and also non application of mind in

omitting M.Sc. (Toxicology) a subject which is directly

related to the post as an essential qualification when

other subjects not directly related to the post have

been included and also not by insisting that

knowledge of Toxicology as mandatory for those who

possess M.Sc. in Chemistry/Biology/Forensic

science with Chemistry in Bachelor degree for

appointment for the post of Scientific Assistant

(Toxicology).

25. The reason assigned by the State respondents

that the course in M.Sc. in Toxicology is a relatively

new subject and not widely prevalent and that it is

also not an essential qualification in many other

institutions seems to be frivolous and irrelevant if the

other new subject of Biochemistry has been included.

The justification of the State respondents in omitting

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 Page |6

the qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology is not based

on any reason that it is not relevant to the post. Thus,

if the authorities have omitted directly relevant

subjects while considering not directly relevant

subjects for appointment to the post of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology), such an action of the

authorities will be vitiated.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, though

this Court rejects the plea of the petitioner that the

educational qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology) was

one of the essential qualifications in the old

recruitment rules of 1999 for the post of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology), this Court holds that the new

recruitment rules of 2015 for the post of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology) suffer from vice of

unreasonableness and arbitrariness violating Article

14 of the Constitution of India, and are accordingly,

set aside.

The respondent authorities are, consequently

directed to reconsider the appropriateness of the

education qualifications already prescribed by

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 Page |7

considering the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of

the education qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology as

one of the essential qualifications for appointment to

the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) with

suitable conditions as the authorities may deem fit.

26. For the reasons discussed above, the petition is

allowed."

5. The petitioner, who is a member of the minority

community, studied Matriculation, thereafter Higher Secondary

Examination, Bachelor of Science and completed his M.Sc. in

Toxicology. The Government of Manipur, vide notification dated

23.10.2015, published the Recruitment Rules for the post of

Scientific Assistants (Chemistry), (Biology), (Ballistics),

(Toxicology), (Documents), (Mobile Forensic Unit) and

(Photography).

6. According to the petitioner, though the Recruitment

Rules, 2015 for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) is

included in the said Recruitment Rules, the qualification required

for the said post does not include M.Sc. (Toxicology). Thus, the

candidates, including the petitioner who have undergone courses

for Toxicology, are debarred from applying for the said post.

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 Page |8

7. The petitioner contends that in other States, for the

post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), M.Sc. Toxicology is an

essential qualification. The said rule has been framed in such a

way so that the near and dear ones of the authorities concerned

can be included and other eligible candidates such as the

petitioner can be excluded. It is also contended that there are

also various other subjects which are required to be deleted from

the rules, as they are not relevant with the said subject.

8. According to the respondent State the Forensic

Science (Toxicology) is a branch of Chemical Science for which

a strong foundation of Chemistry is required. A Forensic

Toxicologist has to perform scientific tests on bodily fluids and

tissue samples to identify any drugs or chemicals present in the

body. On the other hand, M.Sc. in Toxicology as a subject being

opened recently in only few institutions and universities is not an

essential qualification of scientific staff of most of the Forensic

Science Laboratories, including those of Andhra Pradesh,

Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Manipur,

Odisha, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Tripura etc. and CFSL (both DFSS

& CBI). Therefore, M.Sc. in Forensic Science (Special Subject,

Toxicology) prescribed as a qualification in the Recruitment

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 Page |9

Rules, 1999 has been replaced by M.Sc. in Forensic Science

(Chemistry in Bachelor's Degree) in respect of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology) in the Recruitment Rules, 2015. M.Sc. in

Toxicology has never been a qualification in any of the

Recruitment Rules of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology), Forensic

Laboratory, Manipur.

9. It is stated that in the Recruitment Rules, 2015,

M.Sc. (Toxicology) is not included as one of the essential

qualifications. There are institutions in India like the LNJN

National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science,

Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to train Forensic

Scientist, where M.Sc. (Toxicology) is not one of the essential

qualifications of Senior Scientific Assistant (Toxicology).

Toxicology Division of Forensic Science Laboratory, Manipur is

a section where specialists in Forensic Toxicology have to work

and, therefore, it may not be necessary to include M.Sc. in

Toxicology as one of the essential qualifications in the 2015

recruitment rules.

10. The respondent MPSC filed affidavit stating that the

proposal for framing the Recruitment Rules, 2015 was furnished

by the State Government and the MPSC after examining the

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 10

same, found it to be appropriate and, therefore, the MPSC gave

its concurrence, and there was no conspiracy as alleged by the

petitioner.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that the persons possessing M.Sc. in the subjects Chemistry,

Bio-chemistry, Forensic Science without any reference to

specialisation or : knowledge in Toxicology have been made

eligible for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant

(Toxicology) and the same is unreasonable and arbitrary and

thus, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

12. The learned counsel further submitted that there are

other institutions where the academic qualification of M.Sc. in

Toxicology has been made as an essential qualification for

similar posts as in Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police

Academy, Hyderabad, where Master in Toxicology is one of the

recognised essential qualifications for appointment to similar

post.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State

submitted that M.Sc. (Toxicology) has been recently opened only

in seven institutions and it is not widely prevalent and there is no

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 11

other Forensic Science Laboratory in other States where it is the

essential qualification. The learned counsel for the State further

submitted that Forensic Toxicology is a branch of Chemical

Sciences and a strong foundation of Chemistry is required to

become a specialist in Forensic Toxicology and that Forensic

Toxicologist has to perform Scientific tests on bodily fluids and

tissue samples to identify any drug or chemical present in the

body.

14. The learned counsel then submitted that Bio-

chemistry is also a new subject having application in Forensic

Toxicology opened in most of the Indian Universities and many

institutions and that M.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is included as one of

the essential qualifications in many Forensic Science

Laboratories in India, including those of Andhra Pradesh,

Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Tamil

Nadu, Tripura, CFSL DFSS etc., where Toxicology examination

is required. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that there is no

Forensic Science Laboratory in the country which does not have

chemistry as one of the essential qualifications for the post in

Toxicology Division. The learned counsel for the State also relied

upon the following decisions in support of his arguments:

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 12

(i) P. Murugesan v. State of T.N., (1993) 2 SCC 340

(ii) State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709

(iii) P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632

15. This Court considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the

materials available on record.

16. The issue involved in the writ petition is the validity

of the Recruitment Rules published on 23.10.2015 for the post of

Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) in the Department of Home

(Forensic Science Laboratory), Manipur and also to quash the

advertisement dated 29.8.2016 issued by the respondent MPSC.

Prior to the Recruitment Rules, 2015, there was another set of

Recruitment Rules for the post of Scientific Assistant

(Chemistry/Biology/Ballistic/ Toxicology/Documents of the

Forensic Science Laboratory in the Police Department in

Manipur, which were published on 31.5.1999. As per the

Recruitment Rules, 1999, the essential qualification for the post

of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) has been prescribed as M.Sc.

in Chemistry/Biology/Life Science (Zoology stream)

/Physics/Forensic Science (Social subject, Toxicology) from a

recognised University.

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 13

17. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh held that

M.Sc. in Toxicology is not one of the essential qualifications nor

has it been made an essential qualification in the subsequent

Recruitment Rules, 2015 and, therefore, there is no substance in

the contention of the petitioner that M.Sc. in Toxicology has been

excluded from being an essential qualification in the Recruitment

Rules, 2015. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh is of the

further view that the question of exclusion or deletion of M.Sc. in

Toxicology from being a qualification in the Recruitment Rules,

2015 will not arise at all, when it was not prescribed as a

qualification in the Recruitment Rules, 1999 itself. It is a matter

of policy decision and it is within the purview of the State

Government to take policy decisions which warrant no

interference by the Court except in cases where the vested right

of a person has been infringed by it. It is also the view of the

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh that to prescribe an eligibility

criteria or a qualification in the Recruitment Rules for

appointment to a particular post in the State is the job of an expert

and the Court not being an expert body, cannot substitute its

opinion to that of the expert body.

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 14

18. However, the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice held

that under the new Recruitment Rules for the post of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology), if one possesses M.Sc. degree in

Chemistry or Biochemistry or Forensic Science, even if one has

not studied the subject of Toxicology, he will still be eligible for

appointment as a Scientific Assistant (Toxicology). Further, if the

rule making authority totally ignores a directly relevant subject

and includes a not directly relevant subject, such Recruitment

Rules may suffer from the vice of non-application of mind,

unreasonableness and arbitrariness.

19. After extracting the relevant portions of Recruitment

Rules, 1999 and Recruitment Rules, 2015, the then Hon'ble

Acting Chief Justice held that under the new Recruitment Rules,

2015, the rule making authorities have not insisted upon the

knowledge in Toxicology as there is no such reference/mention

of such requirement under the Recruitment Rules, 2015.

20. The case of the petitioner is that he had no

knowledge of the publication of the Recruitment Rules, 2015 till

the advertisement was issued as the same was not published

widely through local media. Further case of the petitioner is that

in the meanwhile the MPSC issued an advertisement dated

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 15

29.8.2016, whereby 12 posts of Scientific Assistant of various

subjects, including 2 posts of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology),

was published, for appointment from open market. It is also the

case of the petitioner that he had been studying M.Sc.

(Toxicology) at the Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi with

the hope and trust that after possessing the said qualification, he

will get suitable job commensurate with his educational

qualification. However, the respondent authorities deliberately

deleted the subject of M.Sc. (Toxicology) from the essential

qualifications for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology)

though the said qualification is the most essential qualification

directly related with the post in. question. Thus, the case of the

petitioner is that on account of the publication of the Recruitment

Rules, 2015 and also issuance of the advertisement, the

legitimate expectation as well as the right of the petitioner for

applying to the relevant post in the said recruitment drive has

been deprived.

21. However, the respondent State contended that

M.Sc. (Toxicology) has never been one of the essential

qualifications in the Recruitment Rules of Scientific Assistant of

Forensic Science Laboratory, Manipur. Hence, the question of

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 16

deletion of M.Sc. (Toxicology) resulting in deprivation of

petitioner's chance to apply for the posts of Scientific Assistant

does not arise. It is the petitioner's assumption that there was

M.Sc. (Toxicology) as one of the essential qualifications in the

Recruitment Rules of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology).

Therefore, there is no ground for setting aside the Recruitment

Rules, 2015 of Scientific Assistants, including the Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology) and the related advertisement published

by the respondent MPSC.

22. The petitioner also demonstrated the advertisement

issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of

National Capital Territory of Delhi for appointment to the post of

Scientific Assistant (HRD), Senior Scientific Assistant

(Chemistry), where the qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology) is also

one of the qualifications. Thus, it is clear that the qualification i.e.,

M.Sc. (Toxicology) is directly related to the post of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology), but the subject itself is excluded from the

essential qualification for appointment to the post of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology) in the impugned Recruitment Rules, 2015.

23. In P.Murugesan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held:

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 17

"16. On the basis of the above observations

it is argued that once the diploma holders are

also held eligible for promotion, it is not

permissible for the rule-making authority to

make any distinction between graduates and

diploma holders. We cannot agree. As a

matter of fact, this Court in Shujat Ali case

[(1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 454 :

(1975) 1 SCR 449] upheld the validity of the

Andhra Pradesh rule which made a distinction

between the graduate supervisors and non-

graduate supervisors in the matter of

promotion to the higher categories on the

ground that in the erstwhile States of Andhra

and Hyderabad, graduate supervisors were

always treated as distinct and separate from

the non-graduate supervisors, their pay

scales were different; they were never really

integrated into one class and graduate

supervisors were called Junior Engineers.

Accordingly, it was held that reducing the

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 18

chances of promotion of non-graduate

supervisors vis-a-vis graduate supervisors

was not discriminatory. (As we shall presently

point out, the factual situation in Madras

Corporation Engineering service is similar.)

The observations quoted above cannot be

read in isolation nor can they be read as

running counter to the ratio of T.N. Khosa

[ (1974) 1 SCC 19 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 49:

(1974) 1 SCR 771] Both decisions were

rendered by Constitution Benches. In any

event, the facts and circumstances of the

case before us are akin to those in Shujat Ali

[(1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 454:

(1975) 1 SCR 449] Secondly, as explained

hereinbefore there would be no justification in

principle for holding that the rule-making

authority has only two options namely either

to bar the diploma holders altogether from

promotion or to allow them equal opportunity

with the graduate engineers in the matter of

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 19

promotion. It must be remembered that the

power of rule-making under the proviso to

Article 309 has been held to be legislative in

character (Vadera [B.S. Vadera v. Union of

India, AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1968) 3 SCR 575 :

1969 Lab IC 100] ). If so, the test is whether

such a restrictive view is permissible vis-a-vis

a legislature. If not, it is equally impermissible

in the case of the rule-making authority under

the proviso to Article 309. The only test that

such a rule has to pass is that of Articles 14

and 16 -- and to that aspect we may turn

now."

24. In McDowell & Co. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held :

"43. Shri Rohinton Nariman submitted that

inasmuch as a large number of persons falling

within the exempted categories are allowed to

consume intoxicating liquors in the State of

Andhra Pradesh, the total prohibition of

manufacture and production of these liquors is

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 20

'arbitrary' and the amending Act is liable to be

struck down on this ground alone. Support for

this proposition is sought from a judgment of

this Court in State of T.N. v. Ananthi Ammal

[(1995) 1 SCC 519]. Before, however, we refer

to the holding in the said decision, it would be

appropriate to remind ourselves of certain

basic propositions in this behalf. In the United

Kingdom, Parliament is supreme. There are no

limitations upon the power of Parliament. No

court in the United Kingdom can strike down an

Act made by Parliament on any ground. As

against this, the United States of America has

a Federal Constitution where the power of the

Congress and the State Legislatures to make

laws is limited in two ways, viz., the division of

legislative powers between the States and the

Federal Government and the fundamental

rights (Bill of Rights) incorporated in the

Constitution. In India, the position is similar to

the United States of America. The power of

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 21

Parliament or for that matter, the State

Legislatures is restricted in two ways. A law

made by Parliament or the legislature can be

struck down by courts on two grounds and two

grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative

competence and (2) violation of any of the

fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the

Constitution or of any other constitutional

provision. There is no third ground. We do not

wish to enter into a discussion of the concepts

of procedural unreasonableness and

substantive unreasonableness -- concepts

inspired by the decisions of United States

Supreme Court. Even in U.S.A., these

concepts and in particular the concept of

substantive due process have proved to be of

unending controversy, the latest thinking

tending towards a severe curtailment of this

ground (substantive due process). The main

criticism against the ground of substantive due

process being that it seeks to set up the courts

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 22

as arbiters of the wisdom of the legislature in

enacting the particular piece of legislation. It is

enough for us to say that by whatever name it

is characterised, the ground of invalidation

must fall within the four corners of the two

grounds mentioned above. In other words, say,

if an enactment is challenged as violative of

Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is

found that it is violative of the equality

clause/equal protection clause enshrined

therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged

as violative of any of the fundamental rights

guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article

19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found

not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of

Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be

struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary

[ An expression used widely and rather

indiscriminately - an expression of inherently

imprecise import. The extensive use of this

expression in India reminds one of what

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 23

Frankfurter, J. said in Hattie Mae Tiller v.

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 87 L Ed 610 :

318 US 54 (1943). "The phrase begins life as a

literary expression; its felicity leads to its lazy

repetition and repetition soon establishes it as

a legal formula, undiscriminatingly used to

express different and sometimes contradictory

ideas", said the learned Judge.] or

unreasonable. Some or other constitutional

infirmity has to be found before invalidating an

Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on

the ground that court thinks it unjustified.

Parliament and the legislatures, composed as

they are of the representatives of the people,

are supposed to know and be aware of the

needs of the people and what is good and bad

for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over

their wisdom. In this connection, it should be

remembered that even in the case of

administrative action, the scope of judicial

review is limited to three grounds, viz., (i)

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 24

unreasonableness, which can more

appropriately be called irrationality, (ii) illegality

and (iii) procedural impropriety (see Council of

Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service

[1985

AC 374: (1984) 3 All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR

1174] which decision has been accepted by

this Court as well). The applicability of doctrine

of proportionality even in administrative law

sphere is yet a debatable issue. (See the

opinions of Lords Lowry and Ackner in R. v.

Secy. of State for Home Deptt., ex p Brind

[1991 AC 696 " (1991) 1 All ER 720] AC at 766-

67 and 762.) It would be rather odd if an

enactment were to be struck down by applying

the said principle when its applicability even in

administrative law sphere is not fully and finally

settled. It is one thing to say that a restriction

imposed upon a fundamental right can be

struck down if it is disproportionate, excessive

or unreasonable and quite another thing to say

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 25

that the court can strike down enactment if it

thinks it unreasonable, unnecessary or

unwarranted. Now, coming to the decision in

Ananthi Ammal [(1995) 1 SCC 519], we are of

the opinion that it does not lay down a different

proposition. It was an appeal from the decision

of the Madras High Court striking down the

Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan

Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 as violative of

Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution.

On a review of the provisions of the Act, this

Court found that it provided a procedure which

was substantially unfair to the owners of the

land as compared to the procedure prescribed

by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, insofar as

Section 11 of the Act provided for payment of

compensation in instalments if it exceeded

rupees two thousand. After noticing the several

features of the Act including the one mentioned

above, this Court observed: (SCC p. 526, para

7)

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 26

"7. When a statute is impugned under

Article 14 what the court has to decide is

whether the statute is so arbitrary or

unreasonable that it must be struck down.

At best, a statute upon a similar subject

which derives its authority from another

source can be referred to, if its provisions

have been held to be reasonable or have

stood the test of time, only for the purpose

of indicating what may be said to be

reasonable in the context. We proceed to

examine the provisions of the said Act upon

this basis."

25. In P.U. Joshi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held :

"10. We have carefully considered the

submissions made on behalf of both parties.

Questions relating to the constitution, pattern,

nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their

creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 27

and other conditions of service including

avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled

for such promotions pertain to the field of policy

is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction

of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations

or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of

India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at

any rate, to direct the Government to have a

particular method of recruitment or eligibility

criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself

by substituting its views for that of the State.

Similarly, it is well open and within the

competency of the State to change the rules

relating to a service and alter or amend and vary

by addition/substraction the qualifications,

eligibility criteria and other conditions of service

including avenues of promotion, from time to

time, as the administrative exigencies may need

or necessitate. Likewise, the State by

appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate

departments or bifurcate departments into more

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 28

and constitute different categories of posts or

cadres by undertaking further classification,

bifurcation or amalgamation as well as

reconstitute and restructure the pattern and

cadres/categories of service, as may be

required from time to time by abolishing the

existing cadres/posts and creating new

cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee

of the State to claim that rules governing

conditions of his service should be forever the

same as the one when he entered service for all

purposes and except for ensuring or

safeguarding rights or benefits already earned,

acquired or accrued at a particular point of time,

a government servant has no right to challenge

the authority of the State to amend, alter and

bring into force new rules relating to even an

existing service."

There is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid in the

above said decisions. However, on the facts of the present case,

this Court proposes to deal with the merits of the matter.

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 29

26. Admittedly, when the Recruitment Rules, 1999

specifically required possession of some academic qualification

in Toxicology for the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology),

there is no such mention of the requirement of having undertaken

any subject or course in the subject of Toxicology under the

Recruitment Rules, 2015. As rightly held by the then Hon'ble

Acting Chief Justice, under the Recruitment Rules, 2015, nobody

can be disqualified for applying to the post of Scientific Assistant

(Toxicology) even if he has not done the special subject of

Toxicology as this specific requirement has been omitted under

the Recruitment Rules, 2015.

27. It is apposite to note that no material has been

produced by the respondent State to show that the rule making

authority while making Recruitment Rules, 2015 have considered

the issue about the possession of knowledge in the subject of

Toxicology. Admittedly, there is no reference to the requirement

of knowledge of Toxicology under the Recruitment Rules, 2015

when the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) has to

specifically deal with the cases Involving Toxicology. Moreover,

there is nothing on record to show why the requirement of

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 30

knowledge in the subject of Toxicology has been

omitted/dispensed with in the Recruitment Rules, 2015.

28. There is no substance in the argument advanced by

the learned counsel for the State that the course of M.Sc.

(Toxicology) is a relatively new subject and not widely prevalent

and hence not included as one of the essential qualifications. As

rightly held by the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, why a

person possessing educational qualification of M.Sc. in

Toxicology which is directly related with the subject of Toxicology

has been omitted in the Recruitment Rules, 2015.

29. In fact, the Hon'ble the then Acting Chief Justice,

after analysing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing

the files and materials produced by the parties, has allowed the

writ petition. As rightly held by the then Hon'ble Acting Chief

Justice, the reason for omitting the qualification of M.Sc. in

Toxicology is not based on any material and if the authorities

omitted directly the relevant subject while considering not directly

relevant subjects for appointment to the post of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology), such an action of the authorities will be

vitiated. This Court, subscribes to the view taken by the then

Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice that the Recruitment Rules, 2015

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 31

vitiate insofar as recruitment to the post of Scientific Assistant

(Toxicology) is concerned.

30. I am of the view that there is some force in the

argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

appointment to a particular post of the State Government as well

as the Central Government are the national wealth and each and

every citizen has the right to compete for the said posts unless

he/she is not qualified for the said post.

31. In the instant case, while publishing the impugned

Recruitment Rules, 2015, the qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology)

was excluded for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant

(Toxicology), the post is directly related with the said subject and

the right of the petitioner along with other persons who

possessed the said qualification has been deprived of. In such

view of the matter, the impugned 2015 recruitment rules insofar

as the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and the impugned

advertisement in relation thereto are liable to be set aside.

32. In the result,

(1) The writ petition is allowed and the

recruitment rules, 2015 in respect of the

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016 P a g e | 32

post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and

the consequent impugned advertisement in

respect of the said post of Scientific

Assistant (Toxicology) are quashed.

(2) The respondent authorities are directed

to reconsider the appropriateness of the

educational qualifications already

prescribed by considering the claim of the

petitioner for inclusion of the education

qualification of M.Sc. in Toxicology as one

of the' essential qualifications for

appointment to the post of Scientific

Assistant (Technology) with suitable

conditions as the authorities may deem fit.

(3) No costs.

33. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to

both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.

JUDGE

Yumk Digitally signed by FR/NFR ham Yumkham Rother Sushil Rothe Date:

2021.03.17

r 14:16:41 +05'30'

W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2016