Rajasthan High Court
Komal Garg S/O Deendayal Garg vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 September, 2023
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10432/2021
1. Mithun Kumar Bargujder S/o Shri Ramesh Chand
Bargujder, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 191, Gote Walon Ki
Bagici, Transport Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar Verma, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Azad Market, Gothra, Khetri
Nagar, Tehsil Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. Naresh Kumar Serawat S/o Shri Lalchand Serawat, Aged
About 29 Years, Khariya Ki Dhani, Ward No. 08, Harota,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Yadav, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Karni Sagar, Post
Chimanpura, Shahpura Dist. Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajesh Choudhari S/o Shri Ramrakh Choudhari, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o B-36, Moti Vihar Chak Gator, Pratap
Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Shreeji Nagar,
Choti Chopad, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302018
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk
Road, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Ankit Gaud S/o Shri Subhash Chand, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Near Bhadurpur Road, Shastri Nagar, Tehsil
Ramgarh, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
6. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o C-153, Sector-4, Sainki Basti, Churu, Rajasthan.
7. Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Harphool Yadav, Aged About
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:00:42 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (2 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
22 Years, R/o Vpo Aaspura, Tehsil Srimadhopur, Dist,
Sikar, Rajasthan.
8. Prakash Saini S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Near Ward No. 15, Sardar Sahar, Dist. Churu,
Rajasthan.
9. Omprakash Meena S/o Shri Lallu Prashad Meena, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Indawa, Tehsil Lalsoth, Dist.
Dausa, Rajasthan.
10. Hemant Arora S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ward No.14, Vpo, Dholipal, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
11. Pappu Dayal Meena Son Of Shri Sitaram Meena, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village Dhamsya, Dhani Lamba Ki,
Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur (Raj.)
12. Jevikant Sharma Son Of Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Chopra Dhani, Vpo Didwana, Tehsil
Lalsot, Dausa Rajasthan (Rajasthan)
13. Kuldeep Singh Son Of Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o C-153, Sector 4, Behind FCI Godam, Saini
Basti, Churu (Raj)
14. Alok Kumar Shrivastava Son Of Shri Ramesh Chandra
Shrivastava, Aged About 36 Years, R/o R/04, Aishwaraya
Colony, 132, Kvgss, Abas Nawa, City Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10433/2021
Chanchal Danodiya D/o Sitaram Danodiya, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 13, Baba Ramdev Marg, Arjun Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Shreeji Nagar,
Choti Chopad, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302018.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Rd,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:00:42 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (3 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302018.
4. Ankit Kumar S/o Shri Narayan Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Maghwalo Ka Bada, Vas Ghanerao, Tehsil Desuri, Dist.
Pali, (Rajasthan).
5. Udit Bakolia D/o Shri Hansraj Bakolia, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No.45, Regar Basti, Ratangarh, Churu,
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10435/2021
Monika Choudhary D/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ward No. 4, Dhani - Sitokawali, Village Kotary Dhayalan,
Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Shreeji Nagar,
Choti Chopad, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302018.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk
Road, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302018.
4. Sonal D/o Sunil Choudhary, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Rathore Market, Near Bus Stand, Bilada, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
5. Kiran Bala D/o Shri Surendra, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ward No.14, Vpo Maniwali, Tehsil Sadulsahar, District
Sriganganagar.
6. Anita Choudhary D/o Shivkaran Jat, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Ramjipura, Khacharyawas, Tehsil
Dataramgarh, District Sikar.
7. Mukesh Soni S/o Shri Manak Chand Soni, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Sujangarh Road, Mohanpura, Nokha, Bikaner
(Raj.).
8. Mehra Ram Raika S/o Shri Kheema Ram Raika, Aged
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:00:42 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (4 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
About 27 Years, R/o Tara Tara Math, Barmer (Raj.).
9. Supriya Devi D/o Shri Sundaram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o First Aam Ki Nadi, Pratap Nagar, Lohakhana, Ajmer
(Raj.).
10. Ramsanchee S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Chak, 7-K-Pd, Post Rawla, Tehsil Rawla, District
Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13240/2021
1. Komal Garg S/o Deendayal Garg, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o V/p Main Market, Gudhaghandrati, Tehsil Nadoti,
District Karauli, Rajasthan - 322213.
2. Rahul Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Bichpadi, Post Nimera, Jhotwara,
District Jaipur - 302012.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Shreeji Nagar,
Choti Chopad, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302018
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Rd,
Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302018.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah with Mr.Harendra Neel
For Respondent(s) : Mr.SS Raghav, AAG
Mr.Bhagwant Singh Choudhary, Dy.GC
Mr.Nalin G.Narain, AGC
Mr.RN Mathur, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Himanshu Jain
Mr.Narendar Singh Choudhary,
Sr.Adv.with Mr.Nikhil Pal Singh - for
respondent No.3
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:00:42 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (5 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
JUDGMENT
Judgment reserved on : 18th July, 2023
Date of Judgment : 13th September, 2023
By the Court:
1. The present writ petitions since involve common question,
hence, are decided by common order with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Court takes S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10432/2021
[Mithun Kr. Bargujder & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.] as lead
case for deciding the controversy involved, relating to
appointment on the post of Investigator under the Rajasthan
Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 [hereinafter shall be
referred to as "the Rules of 1978"].
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the final result dated
03.09.2021, extended result dated 09.09.2021 and verbal
rejection of the their candidature in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 22.01.2019 despite having more than cut-off
marks in their respective categories on the ground of not having
studied the subject of Mathematics or Statistics in all the three
years of graduation.
4. The facts, in brief, as pleaded in the writ petition
No.10432/2021, are that the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection
Board [hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Selection Board"]
issued an advertisement dated 22.01.2019 for making selection
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (6 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
on the post of Investigator under the Rules of 1978 and total 56
posts were advertised in Non-TSP Area and 6 posts in TSP Area.
The Selection Board issued a corrigendum dated 11.09.2020
whereby additional 8 posts for Non-TSP Area of Investigator were
also required to be filled.
5. The petitioners have pleaded that syllabus of the
examination has been divided into two parts i.e. (i) General
Knowledge; and (ii) General Statistics.
6. The petitioners have pleaded that Rule 12 of the Rules of
1978 provides for academic, technical qualification and experience
and according to which a candidate for direct recruitment has to
possess (a) the qualification given in column (4) of the Schedule;
and (b) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari script
and knowledge of Rajasthan culture. The qualification and
experience for direct recruitment for the post of Investigator is
provided under the Schedule in Section-IV [Agriculture Statistics]
at S.No.12 which speaks "Graduate with Mathematics OR
Statistics from a recognized University established by law
in India OR Junior Certificate Course of Institute of Agri.
Research Statistics (ICAR)".
7. The petitioners have pleaded that since they were fulfilling
eligibility for the post of Investigator, as such, they applied
through online application for the post of Investigator. The
petitioners claim to possess the requisite qualification of Bachelor
of Commerce, which is also reflected from the marksheets issued
to them.
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (7 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
8. The petitioners have pleaded that the Selection Board
declared provisional result on 16.06.2021 thereby calling 1.5
times of the candidates for document verification/eligibility check
and the names of the petitioners were also reflected as 'Selected
Candidates' in the said provisional result.
9. The petitioners were called for document
verification/eligibility check in pursuance of the office order dated
30.06.2021. The petitioners have pleaded that final result dated
03.09.2021, was issued by the respondents wherein the
petitioners were not selected despite securing more than cut-off
marks in their respective categories on account of not studying
the subjects of Statistics or Mathematics for three years in their
graduation.
10. The petitioners have pleaded that they sought an information
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by submitting an
application before the competent authority of the Agriculture
Department and reply, in response thereto, was given on
16.06.2021 and it was informed to the petitioners that the
qualification under the Rules of 1978 nowhere prescribes the
requirement of having studied the subject of Statistics or
Mathematics in all the three years of graduation degree.
11. The petitioners have further pleaded that extended result
was also announced by the respondents on 06.09.2021 and
09.09.2021 and other candidates, who were having lesser
marks/merit than the petitioners, were selected and the
petitioners have been excluded.
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (8 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
12. The petitioners have also pleaded that the qualification
acquired by them of Bachelor of Commerce from the University of
Rajasthan that too in the subject of Economics and Financial
Management, covers the entire syllabus of the competitive
examination for selection on the post of Investigator.
13. The petitioners have pleaded that during pendency of the
writ petitions, the Department of Personnel (DoP) issued the
impugned letter dated 12.08.2022 and clarified that for being
selected on the post of Investigator, a candidate should have a
graduation degree with Mathematics or Statistics and since the
candidates who did not study Mathematics or Statistics in three
years of their graduation, were not eligible for the post of
Investigator.
14. The petitioners have further pleaded that they have obtained
degree of Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Rajasthan
and studied the subject of Statistics for two years with
nomenclature of papers as Code 1138 (Accounts & Business
Statistics) and Code 2138 (Accounts & Business Statistics).
15. In the writ petition, the petitioners, while reproducing
various provisions of the UGC Act & Regulations, 2003, have
pleaded as follows:-
(i) The University Grants Commission Act, 1956
(hereinafter shall be referred to as "the UGC Act") under
Section 12A(1)(d) defines "qualification" as a degree or
any other qualification awarded by a University. Section
22(1) of the UGC Act, 1956 confers right of granting degree
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (9 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
by a University established or incorporated by or under a
Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution
deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an institution
specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or
grant degrees. Section 22(3) of the UGC Act, 1956 defines
"degree" as any such degree as may, with the previous
approval of the Central Government, be specified in this
behalf by the Commission by notification in the official
Gazette.
(ii) The University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards
of Instruction for the Grand of the First Degree through
Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter shall be
referred to as "the UGC Regulations of 2003") have been
issued and Regulation 5.3 of the Regulations of 2003
provides that "Syllabus" for any level of course is to be
prescribed and the University shall not only lay down the
syllabus for each course but also manner for its
implementation. Regulation 6.7 of the Regulations of 2003
authorizes the University to set question papers for the
examination in such a manner so that they cover the entire
syllabus of the concerned course. Regulation 8.2 of the
Regulations of 2003 prescribes that the "degree" to be
awarded in the respective discipline in accordance with the
nomenclature specified by the UGC under Section 22(3) of
the UGC Act.
(iii) The petitioners have pleaded that that the syllabus of
Bachelor of Commerce of the University of Rajasthan covers
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (10 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
the entire syllabus of the competitive examination for
selection on the post of Investigator, which was prescribed
under the instructions, issued to the candidates for writing
examination.
(iv) The petitioners have pleaded that from the syllabus of
Bachelor of Commerce of University of Rajasthan in respect
of subject of Economics and Financial Management, it is clear
that extensive teaching and knowledge is provided with
regard to agriculture sector. The petitioners have also
pleaded that overall syllabus of Bachelor of Commerce of
University of Rajasthan with the subjects of Accounts and
Business Statistics and also with the subject of Economics
and Financial Management, covers the entire syllabus of the
competitive examination for selection on the post of
Investigator.
16. The respondents No.1 & 2 have filed reply to the writ petition
and pleaded that under the Rules of 1978, the Agriculture
Department had sent a requisition for recruitment on the post of
Investigator and the Selection Board issued advertisement inviting
the applications. The educational qualification, mentioned by the
Selection Board, in the advertisement, was as per the provisions
of Rules of 1978. The Selection Board had sought clarification
from the Department about educational qualification by writing
letter on 30.01.2019 and the Department had clarified through its
letter dated 12.02.2019 that the applicants who had studied
Mathematics or Statistics as one of the subjects during all the
years of graduation, were eligible for the post.
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (11 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
17. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioners are not
eligible for appointment on the post of Investigator and the
marksheets which have been enclosed by them in the writ
petitions, also show that the petitioners have not studied
Mathematics or Statistics in all the three years of graduation and
as such, no legal or fundamental right of the petitioners, has been
infringed and the writ petitions are wholly misconceived.
18. The respondents have submitted that the information dated
16.06.2021, provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to
one of the candidates namely Vipul Singh, nowhere confers
eligibility on ineligible candidates and even no credence can be
given to such information in view of the provisions contained in
the Rules relating to the requirement of qualification of graduate
in Mathematics or Statistics.
19. The respondents have also pleaded that for the post of
Investigator 100% Direct Recruitment is to be made and
qualification is graduation in Mathematics or Statistics from a
recognized University established by law in India OR Junior
Certificate Course of Institute of Agriculture Research Statistics
(ICAR). The Selection Board also pleaded that employer i.e. the
Department of Agriculture, had issued a clarification dated
12.02.2019 whereby it was clarified that students were required to
have graduation degree with Mathematics or Statistics and should
have studied these subjects all through the course and not partly.
20. The respondents have pleaded that the candidates
possessing degree course in B.A./B.Sc. (Statistics) have much
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (12 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
better experience or knowledge than the candidates having degree
course in B.Com. and University of Rajasthan has also issued
syllabus as well as procedure of examination for B.Sc.
(Mathematics) and B.Sc. (Statistics) and those students who
passed these Courses are treated as "Graduated with Statistics".
The respondents have pleaded that the Department of Statistics of
University of Rajasthan has also provided information clarifying
that the students of B.Com. of any University cannot be given
regular admission in the M.A./M.Sc. in University of Rajasthan and
the students of B.Com. (Commerce) of University of Rajasthan,
are not graduate with Statistics.
21. The private respondents have also filed reply and plea taken
by other respondents have been reiterated by them. The private
respondents, in their reply, have additionally pleaded that mere
participation in the process of recruitment or in the process of
document verification, does not create any right in favour of the
petitioners. They have also pleaded that only on the basis of
response to Right to Information application by some officials,
without making any consultation with the competent authority, no
right is created in favour of the petitioners to claim appointment.
They have further pleaded that the provisions of UGC Act and UGC
Regulations of 2003 are not relevant at all and same are
applicable for pursuing higher studies or lateral entries in different
courses. The private respondents have further pleaded that the
petitioners have studied one of the branches related to
Mathematics or Statistics, for which the syllabus is very limited,
whereas the syllabus of Mathematics and Statistics in graduation
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (13 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
deals with the entire field of Mathematics and Statistics and as
such, grant of graduation degree in Commerce cannot be equated
at all with the specialized field of Mathematics and Statistics.
22. The petitioners have also filed rejoinder and reiterated their
submissions made in the writ petition.
23. Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Vigyan Shah has made
following submissions, challenging non-selection of the
petitioners:-
23A. Neither the Rules of 1978 nor the advertisement dated
22.01.2019 prescribe that the concerned subject in
Graduation must have been studied in all the three years of
Graduation.
23B. If the Rule making authority has not provided any
duration for which the subject must be studied in graduation
and even if the Rules are silent, the selection body i.e.
Selection Board could have prescribed such period in the
advertisement and rejection of candidature of the petitioners
on the ground of not having studied the concerned subjects
in all the three years of their graduation, after selection, by
securing more than cut-off marks, would tantamount to
change of rules of selection after the recruitment process
had commenced.
23C. The selection body i.e. Selection Board has to act in
accordance with the Rules framed under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and it is the duty of
the Rule making authority to exclusively provide
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (14 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
qualifications under the Rules governing the selection and if
the Rule making authority has not prescribed the condition of
studying a particular subject for a period of three years, then
the additional condition could not have been fastened on the
candidates after they were declared successful.
23D. The action of respondents is in gross ignorance of the
law and non-application of mind in respect of the UGC Act
and the UGC Regulations of 2003, which govern first degree
courses in the entire nation. By virtue of the liberty given to
the University, under the UGC Act and the UGC Regulations
of 2003, to determine their syllabus and examination pattern
for award of first degree courses, if entire course and
syllabus is covered of a particular subject in two years, the
condition of studying such subject in all three years since
being non-prevalent in some of the Universities, the duration
of three years cannot be thrusted upon the candidates, as no
guidelines, in this regard, have been framed by the UGC.
23E. The respondents have not obtained any report from the
Expert Committee which could have examined the syllabus
of the petitioners with the syllabus required for the purpose
of recruitment on the post of Investigator and in absence of
such report from Expert Committee, the candidature of the
petitioners could not have been rejected by the respondents.
23F. In the matter of public employment, the selection
making body is bound by the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, which must always be in accordance with the
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (15 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
Rules governing the selection and the selection making body,
in the present case, was bound by the conditions of the
advertisement dated 21.02.2019, which did not prescribe
any rider of studying a particular subject in three years of
graduation and as such, the respondents are estopped to
change the conditions, which they themselves had provided.
23G. The impugned letter dated 12.08.2022 issued by the
Department of Personnel (DoP) is illegal and arbitrary. The
petitioners since have studied Mathematics and Statistics in
their Graduation for two years and the Department of
Personnel (DoP) had never intended to prescribe the period
of three years, otherwise the same could have been
mentioned in the Rules or in the advertisement and, as such,
the impugned letter dated 12.08.2022, is not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
23H. If any ambiguity is there in the Rules framed for
selection or in the advertisement, the same has to be read in
favour of the candidates i.e. the petitioners.
23I. A bare perusal of syllabus of subject "General
Statistics", as issued by the Selection Board and the syllabus
of B.Com. Part-I & Part-II of University of Rajasthan, clearly
demonstrate that all the subjects taught to the petitioners
are covered under the entire syllabus in the competitive
examination for recruitment on the post of Investigator and
as such, there is no qualitative difference in the syllabus of
subject-General Statistics and the knowledge acquired by
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (16 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
the petitioners in the subject-Statistics and the artificial
discrimination is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
24. Mr.Nalin G. Narayan, AGC, appearing on behalf of the
Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, has made following submissions:-
24A. The claim of the petitioners is in fact equivalence of
their qualification with the qualification of those candidates,
who studied the subjects of Mathematics and Statistics in all
three years of their graduation course, while the petitioners
have studied one of the subjects i.e. Mathematics/Statistics
in one or two years in their graduation course of Bachelor in
Commerce and as such, the prayer for treating their
qualification equivalent may not be considered by this Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
24B. The petitioners are not eligible for the post of
Investigator and even as per the scheme of the Rules of
1978, the next promotional post of Investigator is Assistant
Statistical Officer and the same is required to be filled 50%
by promotion & 50% by direct recruitment and only those
candidates who are Post Graduate in Mathematics/Statistics
can be considered for such direct recruitment and as such,
the petitioners are not eligible as per the relevant Rules.
25. Mr.S.S.Raghav, AAG along with Mr.Bhagwat Singh, DyGC,
appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 submitted that the
petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification and merely
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (17 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
their participation in the selection process, in absence of basic
qualification of having studied subjects of Mathematics or
Statistics in all three years of graduation, does not create any
right in their favour for being considered for appointment.
26. Mr.R.N.Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Himanshu
Jain has made following submissions:-
26A. There is no ambiguity in Rules, as alleged by the
petitioners, of not providing duration of the course in
Graduation of studying a particular subject in the year.
Assuming, though not admitting, there exists an ambiguity,
as alleged, the Department of Personnel (DoP) has clarified
the position as per the Rules.
26B. The comparison of syllabus of B.Com. with that
prescribed for selection on the post of Investigator in General
Statistics is not permissible and cannot be made and a
candidate has to undergo three years Graduation Course in
the subject of Mathematics/Statistics.
26C. The provisions relating to appointment on the post of
Computor under the Rajasthan Statistical Subordinate
Service Rules, 1971 and the post in question of Investigator
to be filled, as per the Rules of 1978, no comparison can be
made as different service Rules provide different
qualification, according to the posts, which are sought to be
filled by the employer.
27. Mr.Vigyan Shah, counsel appearing for the petitioners has
placed reliance on the following judgments:-
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (18 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
(1) Natha Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta reported in
(2005) 2 SCC 271 to demonstrate that there is lack of
application of mind by the respondents, while interpreting
the Rules of 1978 inasmuch as if the words are clear, plain,
unambiguous and reasonably susceptible to only one
reasoning, then the same meaning should be given,
irrespective of its consequences. (Paras 13 & 14)
(2) Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs. State of J&K & Ors.
reported in (2015) 17 SCC 709 and Rakesh Kumar Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors. [Civil Appeal
No.9217/2018] decided on 10.09.2018 to support his
submission that interpretation regarding qualification and
ambiguity therein should be read in favour of the candidates.
(Paras 13 to 16)
(3) Shashidhar Sura Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 158 to buttress his
submission that selection making body is bound to make
recommendations applying the mandate of Rules. (Paras 13
to 17)
28. Mr.R.N.Mathur, Senior Advocate appearing of the
respondents has placed reliance on the following judgment, in
support of his case:-
(1) Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. Vs. Union of India &
Ors. reported in (1975) 3 SCC 76.
(2) J. Ranga Swamy Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 288.
(3) Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. Vs.Sheikh Imtiyaz
Ahmad & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404.
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (19 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
(4) Devender Bhaskar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors. reported in (2021) 7 SCR 506.
(5) Indresh Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 42.
(6) Dr.Shilpa Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
[D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.1149/2019] decided by
the Division Bench of this Court on 27.08.2021.
29. This Court, before dealing with the rival contentions raised
by the respective learned counsels for the parties, deems it proper
to first quote the relevant Clause (7) of the advertisement dated
22.01.2019 and the relevant portion of the schedule which deals
with the posts of Assistant Statistical Officer and Investigator, as
follows:-
"7. पातता एवए शकणकक यिगयता
भारत म णवण दारा स ाणपत ककस णवशणवदालय स गणकत या साएण"यक# क सा
सातक अ वा क& ण' अन)सन ान साएण"यक# सएस ान आई.स .ए.आर. का ज.णनयर पमाक
पत |
SCHEDULE
Section-IV - Agriculture Statistics
S.No. Designation Method of recruitment If by Qualification Qualification & Remarks
of the with percentage. promotion a & experience experience for
posts. post from for direct
which promotion. recruitment.
promotion
will be
made.
Promotion Direct
Recruitment
1 to XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
11 Assistant 50% 50% Investigator/ 5 years' Post Graduate in 33
Statistical Computor experience Mathematics/ years.
Officer on the post Statistics or
mentioned M.Sc. in Agri.
in Col.5. Statistic from
IAPS, New
Delhi
12 Investigator - 100% - - Graduate with 33
Mathematics OR years.
Statistics from a
recognized
University
established by
law in India OR
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (20 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
Junior Certificate
Course of
Institute of
Agri.Research
Statistic (ICAR)
30. The relevant clause, relating to syllabus for the post of
Investigator, issued by the Selection Board, is also quoted
hereunder:-
"vUos'kd ¼Investigator½ lh/kh HkrhZ ijh{kk & 2019
¼d`f'k foHkkx ds fy;s½
ijh{kk dh Ldhe
iz"u&i= vad dqy vad dqy iz"u le;
Hkkx&v%&
lkekU; ¼jktLFkku dk bfrgkl] dyk ,oa
laLd`fr] lkfgR;] ijEijk,sa] fojklr ,oa
jktLFkku dk Hkwxksy½ 150 150 3 ?k.Vs
Hkkx&c%&
lkekU; lakf[;dh
uksV %&
1- iz'u i= esa cgqfodYih; izdkj ¼Objective Type½ ds iz'u gksaxs o lHkh
iz'uksa ds vad leku gksaxsA
2- izR;sd xyr mÙkj ds fy, udkjkRed vady 1@3 vad gksaxsA
ikB~;Øe¼Syllabus½
Hkkx&v%& lkekU; Kku
XXX XXX XXX XXX
Hkkx&c%& lkekU; lakf[;dh
izfr/k;u (sampling), caVu (distribution), ekud =qfV (standard
error), fopj.k (variance), izfrn'kZ losZ{k.k (sample surveys), izfrn'kZ vuqikr
(Sampling ratio), vkSj izfrxeu izfof/k;k¡ (regression methods), lwpdkad
(index numbers), lglEcU/k (correlation), rFkk vllfefr (skewness),
izkf;drk (total probability), csat izes; (bay's theorem), ;kn`fPNd pj
(random variables), ,oa blds izkf;drk caVu (probability distribution),
;kn`fPNd pj dk ek/; (mean) ,oa fopj.k (variance), lr~rrk
(continuity), ,oa vodyuh;rk (differentiability) pj?kkarkdh rFkk y?kqx.kdh;
Qyuksa dh ladYiuk (concept of exponential and logarithmic functions),
rFkk mudk vkadyu (derivations), jksys rFkk ykxjkat ds e/;eku izes; rFkk
mudh T;kferh; O;k[;k (Rolle's and Lagrange's Men mean value theorem
and their geometric interpretations).
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (21 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
iz'ukoyh] izfrn'kZ vfHkdYiuk] izkfof/k;ksa ,oa {kS= ijh{k.k ds fl)kUrksa ds lkFk
dk;Z dh tkudkjh (Acquaintance with the working of questionnaires,
sampling designs, methods & field investigation principals).
lax.kuk (census) ,oa izfrn'kZ losZ] ljy ;kn`fPNd izfripu e; rFkk fcuk
izfrLFkkiu (Simple random sampling with and without replacement) o
izfrp;u izfof/k (regression methods),
d`f"k ;kstukvksa dk lkekU; Kku] jktLFkku ds lanHkZ esa d`f"k lkaf[;dh] jk"Vªh;
d`f"k chek ;kstuk rFkk ekSle vk/kkfjr d`f"k chek dk KkuA "
31. This Court, on perusal of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1978, finds
that the post of Investigator is to be filled 100% by direct
recruitment and the qualification prescribed in the Schedule in
Section-IV (Agriculture Statistics) at No.12 is graduate with
Mathematics OR Statistics from a recognized University
established by law in India OR Junior Certificate Course of
Institute of Agri.Research Statistic (ICAR).
32. This Court finds that the advertisement dated 22.01.2019
issued by the Selection Board had also prescribed the eligibility
and educational qualification in Clause 7 and the same was
prescribed, as per the Rules of 1978 but the only difference is that
the advertisement was issued in Hindi language by the
respondents, however, the qualification was the same, as was
prescribed in the Rules of 1978.
33. This Court finds that the candidate who was to apply and fill
the online application form was to ensure that he fulfills the
eligibility, educational qualification, age, etc. The petitioners, in
the instant case, having passed their Graduation in Commerce,
obtained three year degree of Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.).
The petitioners, since studied some subjects of Statistics in one or
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (22 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
two years of their B.Com. Course, assumed themselves to be
graduates in Statistics, applied for the post in question online,
treating them fully eligible.
34. This Court finds that the petitioners on getting the
information in response to their application submitted under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 also assumed their eligibility as no
duration of studying a subject in all three years was
communicated to them.
35. This Court finds that the employer has prescribed
educational qualification for making recruitment on the post of
Investigator which is to be manned in the Agriculture Department,
more particularly in the Section of Agriculture Statistics. The
employer, in its wisdom, if has prescribed the educational
qualification, for the purpose of direct recruitment on the post of
Investigator, from the candidates who are graduate with
Mathematics or Statistics, then only such candidates who are
graduate with Mathematics or Statistics can alone be eligible for
applying on such post.
36. This Court further finds that the petitioners, who have
admittedly passed their graduation in B.Com. and also studied
subjects like Accounts & Business Statistics in Part-I and Accounts
& Business Statistics in Part-II, cannot be equated with those
graduates, who have studied the subject of Mathematics or
Statistics for entire duration of degree course for three years.
37. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
neither the advertisement nor the corrigendum anywhere
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (23 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
prescribe the duration of subject to be studied for all three years
in a degree course, is wholly devoid of any substance and merit.
The person, who acquires a degree course which is also called
Graduate, necessarily has to undergo a particular stream of
subjects like Commerce, Science, Arts, etc. The requirement of a
graduate with Mathematics or Statistics can only be fulfilled by a
candidate who has studied the subjects in graduation for a
continuous period and only by having one or two papers for a
duration of less than three years, cannot be equated with the
candidates who has studied the subject of Statistics or
Mathematics for complete duration of three years of a graduate
course.
38. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
syllabus prescribed by the recruiting agency i.e. the Selection
Board, giving description of different subjects and on a
comparison being made of the same with the subjects taught to
the petitioners i.e. Statistics during their graduation course i.e.
B.Com., would lead to irresistible conclusion that the petitioners
have covered all the subjects, this Court finds that such
comparison of different topics, taught in different degree courses,
may have some similarity, however, the equivalence, as sought by
the petitioners, cannot be done by this Court under the writ
jurisdiction. The contents of the course, their duration, pattern of
examination, evaluation of answers, etc. are all in the domain of
the expert bodies, entrusted with the said job and in the present
case, the University of Rajasthan itself has clarified that
qualification of graduation in Commerce i.e. B.Com. cannot be
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (24 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
treated equal to the graduation in Mathematics and/or Statistics.
This Court is afraid to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that mere reading of different topics,
covered in the course attended by the petitioners i.e. B.Com.,
should confer eligibility on the petitioners.
39. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
ambiguity relating to qualification, is required to be read in favour
of the candidates i.e. the petitioners, as under bonafide belief, the
petitioners secured their merit position, this Court finds that there
has been no ambiguity or any interpretation is required in respect
of qualification, sought by the employer while undertaking the
process of making recruitment. The petitioners, if under mistaken
belief of possessing eligibility, by studying some subjects of
Statistics in their graduate degree course only for one or two
years, thought themselves eligible to apply by submitting online
form, the same cannot confer eligibility on ineligible person and as
such, there is no room of ambiguity either in the Rules or in the
advertisement, as claimed by the petitioners.
40. This Court finds no substance in the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that both the selection body
and employer have not kept in mind the statutory UGC Act and
UGC Regulations of 2003 and notifications issued from time to
time. This Court finds that in the matter of employment, it is the
employer who has to see the requirement of a particular job on a
particular post. The educational qualifications and other
eligibilities, which are required to be prescribed, of course, should
have nexus with the job requirement. If the employer, in order to
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (25 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
manage its Agriculture Statistics wing, wants to employ such
candidates who have studied either Mathematics or Statistics for
entire duration of their graduation, then the other candidates who
do not possess such qualification cannot claim a right that their
candidature is also required to be considered and prescription of
qualification has to be inclusive by making interpretations.
41. This Court further finds that reference to UGC Regulations of
2003 and notifications issued from time to time in no way
prescribe eligibility for employment and the UGC Act and UGC
Regulations of 2003 are only meant for regulating the education
standards in different Universities, academic calendars, contents
of courses, duration and other related matters left to the academic
bodies.
Under the relevant recruitment Rules, which are framed
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the
employer has to see the requirement of eligible persons by
prescribing the relevant educational and other qualifications and
the UGC Act and UGC Regulations of 2003, do not have any
relevance for such purpose.
42. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the Department of Personnel (DoP) has committed an error in
interpreting the Rules in an arbitrary manner by providing a rider
of duration of a subject to be taught in all three years of
graduation and the same is beyond the scope of the Rules of
1978, this Court finds that not only the selection body but the
administrative department and the Department of Personnel (DoP)
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (26 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
also had made it very clear that a graduate who has studied the
subject of Mathematics or Statistics alone has to be considered for
the post of Investigator. The word "graduate" in a particular
subject necessarily has to mean that subjects in a particular
stream are required to be taught in all three years of a graduate
degree course. This Court is afraid to accept the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that teaching of a subject for
one or two years with full contents would make a person eligible.
This Court cannot accept such proposition or interpretation and if
the same logic is to be applied then a plea can be raised that
entire syllabus of a particular subject has been taught in one or
two years and since all topics have been covered in one or two
years, then such candidate can also be treated as eligible. This
analogy is not only illogical but irrelevant also.
43. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned
counsel for the respondents that not only the post of Investigator
is to be filled from the persons who have the relevant educational
qualification but also the next post of Assistant Statistical Officer,
in the same Section-IV (Agriculture Statistics) of the Schedule,
requires that the said post can be filled 50% by promotion from
Investigator or Computor. The educational qualification for the
purpose of 50% direct recruitment is post graduate in
Mathematics/Statistics or M.Sc. in Agriculture Statistics from IAPS,
New Delhi.
A combined reading of the qualification shows that a person
has to be a graduate in Mathematics or Statistics and post
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (27 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
graduate in Mathematics or Statistics for the post of Investigator
and Assistant Statistical Officer respectively.
44. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that a
candidate, who has Statistics as one of the subjects in Bachelor
Degree, is eligible for the post of Computor, as per the Rajasthan
Statistical Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and
accordingly, the petitioners are also required to be treated as
eligible for the post of Investigator, as they have studied Statistics
as one of the subjects in their Bachelor Degree, this Court finds
that the post of Computor under the Statistical Department is
governed by a separate set of Rules i.e. the Rajasthan Statistical
Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010. This Court finds
that the post of Computor in a different department cannot be
equated or compared with the post of Investigator in the
Agriculture Department, as their job requirements, educational
qualifications and employers are different. This Court, accordingly,
does not find that the principle of equality can be claimed by the
petitioner drawing comparison between two different services and
accordingly, the said contention is required to be rejected.
45. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the Apex Court in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry (supra) has
laid down the law that interpretation in respect of qualification has
to be given plain meaning and if there exists any ambiguity, then
it should be read in favour of the candidates, this Court finds that
in the present facts of the case, there is no interpretation which is
required in respect of qualification and further there is no
ambiguity, as the graduates who have studied Mathematics or
[2023:RJ-JP:22347-SB] (28 of 28) [CW-10432-33,35/2021]
Statistics, as one of the subjects for entire duration of graduation,
are eligible for the post of Investigator. Accordingly, the said
judgment is of little assistance to the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
46. These writ petitions lack merit and the same are accordingly,
dismissed. The interim order dated 18.09.2021 stands vacated. No
costs.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Solanki DS, PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
