Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamdeep Singh vs The Punjab State Cooperative Milk ... on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
1
CWP-15338 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-15338 of 2019
Reserved on: 28.02.2024
Pronounced on: 12.03.2024
Karamdeep Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producer's Federation Limited and
others
......Respondents
CWP-25561 of 2016
Vikas Jindal
......Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producer's Federation Limited and
others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP No.15338 of 2019.
Mr. Rishu Bajaj, Advocate for
Mr. Adityajit Singh Chadha, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP No.25561 of 2016.
Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate,
for respondents No.4 and 5 in CWP No.25561 of 2016.
None for Respondent No.4 in CWP No.15338 of 2019.
Respondent Nos.6 and 7 already proceeded exparte
Vide order dated 08.01.2020 in CWP No.25561 of 2016.
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2024 04:48:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
2
CWP-15338 of 2019
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. By this common order, afore-mentioned two writ petitions
are being disposed of as common question of facts and law are
involved. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CWP-
15338 of 2019.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant
petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a
writ of mandamus for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to appoint the
petitioner as Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Technician under the
general category in pursuance to advertisement No.02/2016 (Annexure
P-1) as the petitioner has been left out and persons lower in merit have
been selected.
3. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that
respondent No.2-Managing Director, Punjab State Co-operative Milk
Producers' Federation Limited (Milkfed), issued advertisement
No.02/2016, whereby 100 posts of clerk-cum-typist and 40 posts of
Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Technician were advertised on
27.05.2016, inviting online applications from the eligible candidates.
Petitioner being duly qualified, applied for the post of Laboratory
Assistant/Laboratory Technician under the general category vide his
application form (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and he was issued admit card
and examination for recruitment for the said post was held on
11.09.2016 at DAV Senior Secondary School, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
Thereafter, on 04.10.2016, respondent No.3, Manager (HR), Milkfed,
issued and circulated list of candidates being called for counselling for
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
CWP-15338 of 2019
the recruitment of management trainees against the posts of Laboratory
Assistant/Laboratory Technician. As the petitioner got 24th rank in the
merit list as he obtained 54.75% marks in the examination, he was
called for counselling on 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner
appeared in the counselling on 13.10.2016 along with all
certificates/documents and on 02.12.2016, respondent No.3 issued
notice for appointment of management trainees against the posts of
Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Technician and the list of selected
candidates was annexed along with notice and name of the petitioner
was not there in the list of selected candidates and persons lower in
merit have been selected for appointment and stations were allocated to
all the selected/appointed candidates. Thereafter, petitioner made
various representations, including e-mails (Annexure P-6) and since no
action has been taken on the said representations, therefore, present
petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.15338 of
2019 submits that as per Advertisement No.2/2016, the petitioner
applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant / Laboratory Technician
vide application (Annexure P-3) and secured 54.75 % marks in the
examination and was called for counselling on 13.10.2016, however,
the persons lower in merit have been selected and appointed and
despite the representation dated 3/5.12.2016 (Annexure P-6), no action
has been taken by the respondents.
5. Written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has
been filed, wherein it has been stated as under: -
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
CWP-15338 of 2019
"1. That the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable as the final list of the selected candidates
was displayed on the official website of the answering
respondent on 02.12.2016, whereby the selected
candidates were directed to report for joining at their
respective places of posting before as on 14.12.2016. All
the advertised 40 posts of Laboratory
Assistant/Laboratory Technician were filled. It was
notified in the advertisement that the candidates have to
verify that they possess all the eligibility conditions before
applying for the said posts. It was also notified that mere
online application or placement higher in merit of written
examination shall not entitle a candidate for appointment
to the said posts. The selection will be subject to his
fulfilling eligibility criteria. Since the present petitioner
did not meet the required educational qualification, he
does not have any right of appointment and he cannot
possibly seek mandamus from this Hon'ble court for his
appointment.
2. That it is further submitted that the present petitioner
possesses the educational qualification of B.Sc. in
Biotechnology, whereas the advertisement (P-1) released
by the answering respondents for filling up the said posts
clearly specifies that for the post of Laboratory
Assistant/Laboratory Technician, the candidate must
possess the educational qualification of B.Sc. with
Chemistry. In this regard, it is submitted that the degree
possessed by the petitioner is materially and substantially
at variance from the degree sought by the answering
respondent as essential qualification for the said posts,
keeping in view the nature of duties and responsibilities
attached to the said posts. It is no more res integra that the
conditions stipulated in the advertisement are binding on
all prospective candidates and whether any relaxation in
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
CWP-15338 of 2019
educational qualification should be granted or not is
purely within the discretionary domain of the
recruiter/employer. In the present case, on account of
there being a material variance between the degree sought
as per the advertisement and the degree possessed by the
petitioner, the claim of the petitioner for appointment to
the said posts is wholly unsustainable."
6. Petitioner in CWP-25561 of 2016 also applied for the post
of Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Technician vide application
Annexure P-3 and secured 55.25% marks in the examination and got
21st rank in the merit list and respondents No.4 to 7, who secured less
marks than the marks secured by the petitioner, have been selected and
appointed and despite representations (Annexure P-8), no action has
been taken by the respondents.
7. In CWP No.25561 of 2016, learned counsel for the
petitioner(s) submitted that as per advertisement (Annexure P-1), the
eligibility prescribed for selection to the post of Laboratory
Assistant/Laboratory Technician is B.Sc. with Chemistry. He further
submitted that the petitioner was awarded B.Sc. degree by Punjabi
University wherein in all the three years one of the subjects was
Chemistry. He further contended that petitioner had secured 55.25%
marks in the merit list prepared by respondent No.2-Milkfed, in CWP-
25561 of 2016 and persons lower in merit that the petitioner have been
selected and appointed who were ranked 22 to 25 as against 21st rank of
the petitioner.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4
submitted that as per advertisement, essential qualification for the post
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
CWP-15338 of 2019
of Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Technician is B.Sc. with Chemistry
and whereas the qualification of the petitioner is B.Sc. in
Biotechnology and merely that there was one subject of Chemistry in
all the three years of Bachelor degree, does not make petitioner(s)
eligible for the post in question. He further submitted that degree
acquired by the petitioner(s) is materially and substantially at variance
from the degree sought in the advertisement. He further submitted that
this Court cannot go into the equivalence of the qualifications acquired
by the petitioner(s) and which was required as per advertisement. It has
been submitted by the learned counsel that respondents No.6 and 7 (in
CWP-25561 of 2016) have not joined the post of Laboratory
Assistant/Laboratory Technician.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
10. Admittedly, as per advertisement dated 27.05.2016,
essential qualification required for the post in question is B.Sc. with
Chemistry and whereas the qualification acquired by the petitioner is
B.Sc. (Biotechnology). It is the case of the petitioner(s) that Chemistry
was one of the subjects in all the three years for acquiring said degree
and, therefore, petitioner is fully eligible.
11. To my mind the said contention cannot be accepted as it is
not for the Court to equalise the degrees as the judicial review can
neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the
equivalence of the prescribed qualifications. The question regarding
equivalence of the educational qualifications is a technical question
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
CWP-15338 of 2019
based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic
standards and practical attainments of such qualifications. The
employer is the best judge and it is entitled to prescribe qualifications
as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of
the job, aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Devender Bhaskar and others v. State of Haryana
and others, 2022(1) SCT 51 has held as under: -
xxx xxx xxx xxx
"20. We have already noticed that one of the eligibility
criteria for appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts
teacher as per the advertisement dated 20.07.2006 is a
"two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination
conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department
or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana
Education Department." It was made clear by the
Industrial Training and Vocational Educational
Department, Haryana, that diploma in Art and Craft
Course by the Kurukshetra University is conducted
through distance education and that this course cannot be
equated with two-year diploma in Art and Craft Course
awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department.
Recognition of the said Course by the State of Haryana, as
held by the High Court, is entirely different from its
equivalence. When the experts in the Education
Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft by the
Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-year
diploma in Art and Craft awarded by the Haryana
Industrial Training Department, we are of the view that
the High Court was not justified in equalizing them.
21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors (1975) 3 SCC 76, it was held that the question
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
CWP-15338 of 2019
regarding equivalence of educational qualifications is a
technical question based on proper assessment and
evaluation of the relevant academic standards and
practical attainments of such qualifications. It was further
held that where the decision of the Government is based
on the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court,
uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical
insights necessary for the purpose of determining
equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the
Government unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant
considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and
perverse or manifestly wrong.
22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 288 this Court held
that it is not for the court to consider the relevance of
qualification prescribed for various posts.
23. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6
SCC 252 this Court held that the prescribed eligibility
qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment
to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by
the appropriate authority. It was held thus:
"13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it
is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification
for admission to a course or for recruitment to or
promotion in service are matters to be considered
by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to
decide whether a particular educational
qualification should or should not be accepted as
equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the
authority."
24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar
Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610 this Court has
reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter.
It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
CWP-15338 of 2019
academic body of the university relating to equivalence
should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published.
Dealing specifically with whether a distance education
course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the
appellant university therein, the Court held that no
material had been produced before it to show that the
distance education course had been recognized as such.
25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz
Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held that the
State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe
qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into
consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required
for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various
qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition
of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither
expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor
decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications
with any other given qualification. Equivalence of
qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting
authority, to determine.
26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High
Court has erred in holding that the diploma/degree in Art
and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University is
equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft
examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial
Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft
conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational
Education, Haryana."
xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Indresh Kumar Mishra and others v. State of
Jharkhand and others, 2022(2) S.C.T. 587. The said judgments have
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
CWP-15338 of 2019
been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sandip Singh and
others v. State of Punjab and others, 2022(3) S.C.T. 343.
13. In view of the above, no case for interference by this Court
is made out.
14. Dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
12.03.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035550
10 of 10
