Rajasthan High Court

Arti Sharma D/O Babu Lal Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 5 July, 2021

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12822/2020

Arti Sharma D/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Plot No. 69, Friends Colony, Govindpura-Niwaru Link Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education
       Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3.     Rajasthan      Public     Service        Commission,        Through     Its
       Secretary, Ajmer
4.     Shikha Angira D/o Manvendra Sharma, aged about 39
       years, R/o 22A, Bhagwan Path, Rail Nagar, Nirman Nagar,
       Jaipur.
5.     Raghvendra Mishra S/o Manoj Kumar Mishra, aged about
       32 Years, R/o Baiji Raj Ka Kund, Teek Ka Chowk inside
       Delhi Gate, Udaipur.
6.     Shailesh Sharma S/o Satyadev Thakur, Aged About                         41
       Years R/o 6 Ka 345, Shivaji Park, Alwar.
7.     Bhanu Prasad Sharma S/o Dinesh Sharma, Aged about 28
       years R/o Rati Ka Kua, Nar Naveen Dish House, Alwar.
8.     Rakesh Buglalia, S/o Amra Ram, Aged About 37 Years,
       R/o Village Ratanpur, Post Bhnchawa, Distt. Nagaur.
9.     Gulshan Dumoliya, S/o Hemant Kumar, Aged About 32
       Years, R/o Village Nimuchana, Tehsil Bansur, district-
       Alwar.
10.    Rohit Kumar, S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 28 Years,
       R/o Gurunanak Colony, Ward No. 16, Khairthal, Alwar.
                                                                 ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12823/2020 Veena Sidana D/o Ramesh Chander Sidana, Aged About 38 Years, R/o D-13, Ceeri Colony, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principle Education

(2 of 6) [CW-12822/2020]

Secretary, Governement Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. Rajsthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12824/2020 Mohit Rajoria S/o Suresh Kumar Rajoria, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Flat No. J-002, Pearl Green Acre Apartments, Near Somani Hospital, Shri Gopal Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13042/2020 Vinod Kumar S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 157, Shiv Vihar-C, Manyawar, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia, Adv.

Mr. Arpit Dotasara, Adv. through V.C. Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Lubhaya, Adv.

Mr. S.Zakawat Ali, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Adv. for intervenor Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG } all through V.C.

(3 of 6) [CW-12822/2020]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

05/07/2021

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with

the following prayer:-

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to:

i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents be directed to give appointment to petitioner on the post of School Lecturer (Biology - School Education ) because the petitioner possess the requisite qualification and as the petitioner has secured merit and obtained more marks than the last cut off in her category as per result dated 24.08.2020.

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents be directed to consider the educational qualification of the petitioner i.e. M.Sc. (Biotechnology) as requisite qualification as per advertisement and as per the Committee Report dated 28.06.2017 (Annex.9) iii. Issue and appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the impugned order dated 13.10.2020 be declared illegal and quashed and set aside by which the respondents have not considered educational qualification of tghe petitioner as requisite qualification. iv. Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. v. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the

advertisement dated 13.04.2018, the petitioners applied for the

post of Lecturer (School Education) (Biology). As per the

advertisement, the compulsory educational qualification for the

(4 of 6) [CW-12822/2020]

aforesaid post is B.Ed. and Masters Degree in Biology or any

equivalent degree.

After participating in the process of selection, the petitioners

were declared unsuccessful on the ground of not possessing the

requisite qualification and their candidature was rejected.

Being aggrieved by non-selection, the petitioners have

preferred these writ petitions.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the

respondents is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

as in the earlier selection process which relates to the year 2016,

the respondents have given appointment to the candidates who

were having same qualification which the petitioners too are

holding. Counsel further submits that pursuant to the directions of

the State Government dated 9.10.2016 a committee was

constituted and the said committee in its meeting dated

15.06.2017 has given its opinion that the educational qualification

which the petitioners are holding i.e. M.Sc. (Micro Biology) and

M.Sc. (Bio Technology) is equivalent to M.Sc. (Biology) for the

earlier selection that was in the year 2016. Counsel further

submits that the respondents have wrongly relied upon the report

of the committee which gave its opinion on 09.08.2018 i.e. after

issuance of the present advertisement. Counsel further submits

that the respondents cannot be allowed to change the conditions

of advertisement in the mid of the selection process.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

submitted that in the advertisement it was clearly mentioned that

the candidate must possess M.Sc. (Biology) or its equivalent

qualification for appointment on the subject post. Counsel further

submits that for consideration of equivalence, the State

(5 of 6) [CW-12822/2020]

Government constituted the expert committee and the expert

committee in its meeting dated 09.08.2018 has held that the

qualification of M.Sc. (Biology) is not equivalent to M.Sc. (Bio

Technology) and M.Sc. (Micro Biology) and based on the report of

the expert committee, the candidature of the petitioners has been

rejected.

Mr. Ganesh Meena, learned Additional Advocate General

submitted that based on the report of the Expert committee, the

State Government has also issued the order dated 24.11.2020

whereby a decision has been taken that the qualification of M.Sc.

(Micro Biology) and M.Sc. (Bio Technology) is not equivalent to

M.Sc. (Biology), therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected

candidature of the petitioners for the subject post.

In support of the contentions, counsel for the respondents

relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the matter of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Kochi & Ors. Vs. Aarya K. Babu & Another reported in (2019)

8 SCC 587 where in para 16 it has been held as under:-

"16. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence relating to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issue has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in Mohammad Shujat Vs. Union of India wherein it is held that the question in regard to 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 and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of

(6 of 6) [CW-12822/2020]

relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government."

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, admittedly, the petitioners are

not having the requisite qualification for the subject post as per

the advertisement dated 13.04.2018; secondly the question of

equivalence has duly been considered by the Expert committee

constituted by the State Government and the Expert Committee

has held that the qualification being possessed by the petitioners

is not equivalent to M.Sc. (Biology); thirdly, I find no reason to

disbelieve the report of the Expert Committee with regard to

equivalence of two qualifications; lastly considering the facts and

circumstances of the present case, no case is made out for

interference by this court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction

of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.