Rajasthan High Court
Prema Ram Didel Son Of Shri Shaitan ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3811/2021
Prema Ram Didel Son Of Shri Shaitan Ram, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of 128, Didelon Ka Bas Via Rol, Tehsil Jayal,
District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Education Department, Through Its
Principle Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur ( Raj.)
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner
(Rajasthan)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2797/2021
1. Kapil Nawar Son Of Shri Jagmohan Nawar, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of House No. 255, Rajat Colony, Gate No.
08, Nainwa Road, Bundi (Raj.)
2. Durga Lal Regar Son Of Shri Chhotu Lal, Aged About 38
Years, Resident Of Diet Road, Bundi (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Education Department, Through Its
Principle Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur ( Raj.)
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner
(Rajasthan)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Kumari Giri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig
Mr. Amit Lubhaya, through V.C.
Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, through V.C.
(2 of 4) [CW-3811/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
20/07/2021
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with
the following prayers:-
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that your
lordship may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this
writ petition and :
i. By appropriate issuing an appropriate
writ order or direction in the nature of
therein thereof the respondents may kindly
be directed to treat the qualification of
petitioner i.e. M.SC. Botany with
Specialization in Plant Pathology is equal to
M.SC. Agriculture in the larger interest of
justice.
ii. The respondents may further be directed
to given appointment to petitioner on the
post of school lecturer subject agriculture.
iii. Issue any other writ order or direction,
which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper, may kindly be passed in favour of
the petitioner.
iv. 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) (Agriculture). As per the
advertisement, the compulsory educational qualification for the
aforesaid post is B.Ed. and Masters Degree in Agriculture 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
accordingly.
Being aggrieved by non-selection, the petitioners have
preferred these writ petitions.
(3 of 4) [CW-3811/2021]
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
were having subject of Plant Pathology in M.SC. (Botany) Exam,
2017, therefore, the respondents have committed serious error in
rejecting their candidature on the ground of not having the
requisite qualification. Counsel further submits that their
educational qualification is equivalent to M.SC. (Agriculture) as
required under the Advertisement dated 13.04.2018.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that in the advertisement it was clearly mentioned that
the candidate must possess M.Sc. (Agriculture) or its equivalent
qualification for appointment on the subject post. Counsel further
submits that for consideration of equivalence, the State
Government constituted the expert committee and the expert
committee in its meeting dated 06.04.2021 has held that the
qualification of Plant Pathology which the petitioners are having is
not equivalent to M.Sc. (Agriculture) and admittedly, the
petitioners are not having equivalent degree of M.Sc.
(Agriculture), though the petitioners are having the degree of
M.Sc. (Botany).
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.
(4 of 4) [CW-3811/2021]
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
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. (Agriculture); 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.
Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed.
All the pending applications stands disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra Pratap Singh /157-158
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
