Narendar Kumar Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan
2024 Latest Caselaw 4959 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narendar Kumar Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 June, 2024

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2024:RJ-JD:25311]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17948/2023

Om Prakash Gurjar S/o Shri Shrwan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Gaga Ka Kheda, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Rajasthan    Public     Service        Commission,        Through     Its
         Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17552/2023
Narendar Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shiv Raj Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Subhash Nagar, Pander, Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Rajasthan    Public     Service        Commission,        Through     Its
         Secretary, Ajmer
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Surendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
                                Mr. S.R. Paliwal for
                                Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG


              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

04/06/2024

1. The present two petitions have been preferred by the

petitioners aggrieved of the action of the respondent authorities in

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (2 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

shifting the names of the petitioners in provisional list and further

in not verifying the documents of the petitioners even after the

written examination and the interview having been cleared by

them, on the premise of degree of M.Sc. as possessed by them

being not equivalent to the qualification as required in terms of

the advertisement for the post of 'Agriculture Research Officer

(Agriculture Chemistry)'.

2. The facts of the case are that vide advertisement dated

13.04.2018, 38 posts for Assistant Agriculture Research Officer

(Agriculture Chemistry) were notified by the respondent Rajasthan

Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the RPSC').

The requisite educational qualification prescribed for the said post

in the advertisement was as under :

"¼1½ in Øe la[;k 1 ds fy, %&IInd Class M.Sc. (Ag.) Chemistry/Soil Science of a University established by law in India-"

3. The petitioners, possessing a degree of M.Sc (Agriculture) in

'Soil Science - Soil and Water Conservation' applied for the same.

Having cleared the written examination, they were called for the

interview scheduled to be held on 05.07.2023. After the

interviews, the list of successful candidates was issued for the

purpose of document verification. Although the names of the

petitioners found place at Serial Nos. 37 & 38 in the said list, the

same was mentioned to be "provisional". When inquired upon,

they were informed that their post-graduation degree is not

equivalent to that as requisite and hence, their documents would

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (3 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

not be verified. Aggrieved of the same, the present petitions have

been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

requisite qualification as prescribed vide advertisement was M.Sc.

(Ag) Chemistry/Soil Science. Firstly, the same did not prescribe

any specific branch of Chemistry/Soil Science and secondly, the

petitioners are very well in possession of M.Sc. (Agriculture)

degree in Soil Science. The same being equivalent to the

qualification as prescribed, ought to be considered. Further, the

degree has been obtained by the petitioners from a University

established by law, to be specific, Banaras Hindu University

(hereinafter referred to as 'BHU'). Hence, the veracity and sanctity

of the same could not have been placed under suspicion by the

respondents. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that

wherever there arises a dispute pertaining to some degree, the

only fact relevant is whether the same has been issued by a

University established by law. Once it is established that the

University issuing the same is a University established by law, the

genuineness of the degree cannot be put to challenge. Further, as

per the advertisement, one of the requisite qualifications was

M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Soil Science. The petitioners, possessing the

said qualification, could not have been ousted from the selection

process on the premise that the said degree is not equivalent to

the requisite one.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon

notification dated 14.03.2023 issued by the Department of

Agricultural Research and Education wherein it was notified that

the degree in Soil Science includes Masters degree in

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (4 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

Agriculture/Soil Sciences/Agricultural Chemistry/Agricultural

Physics with specialization in Soil Physics and Soil and Water

Conservation/Soil Fertility/Soil Microbiology/Soil Chemistry/Water

Science and Technology.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that even the clarification

dated 11.10.2023 as issued by BHU specifies the degree as

possessed by the petitioners to be equivalent to the degree in

M.Sc. (Ag) Soil Science. There is no plausible reason as to why the

clarification issued by BHU has been totally ignored by the

respondent authorities.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the

case of Suresh Sahu Vs. State & Anr.; 2013 SCC Online Raj

837.

6. A reply to the writ petition has been preferred on behalf of

respondent No.1 State and respondent No.2 RPSC. The only

submission made in the reply by the State is that the qualification

as possessed by the petitioners is not equivalent to that requisite

in terms of the advertisement. However, in the reply as filed by

respondent No.2 RPSC, it has been averred that after the result of

the screening test, the applicants were directed to submit their

detailed application form with necessary credentials for the

purpose of scrutiny and interview. While scrutinizing the said

documents as annexed along with the detailed application form, it

was found that the petitioners had obtained the Masters degree in

'Soil Science - Soil and Water Conservation' whereas, the requisite

educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement was

M.Sc. (Ag)Chemistry/Soil Science. Whether the degree of the

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (5 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

petitioners can be termed to be equivalent to the requisite

qualification, was an issue and hence, the matter was referred by

the RPSC vide letter dated 04.09.2023 to the State Government

for seeking clarification and opinion on the same. In pursuance

thereof, an Expert Committee was constituted by the State

department and the Committee so constituted, concluded that the

qualification held by the petitioners is not equivalent to the

requisite educational qualification. The report of the Expert

Committee has been annexed along with the reply.

Counsel for the RPSC submitted that in view of the report of

the Expert Committee, the respondent RPSC was very well

justified in not calling the petitioners for document verification.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent RPSC relied upon the judgments rendered by the

Jaipur Bench of this Court in Vishnu Bawaree Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.; 2021 Supreme (Raj.) 624 and Dr. Shilpa

Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2021 Supreme (Raj.)

202 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather

and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaaz Ahmad and Ors.; 2019 (2)

SCC 404 and Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Kochi & Ors. Vs. Aarya K. Babu & Anr.; 2019 (8) SCC 587.

7. In rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the so called Expert Committee report is nothing

more than a mere eye wash. The said report, on the face of it,

shows that the Committee did not even care to compare the

curriculum of both the degrees and solely on basis of comparison

of codes of the subjects of BHU, concluded the degree to be not

equivalent. The said conclusion based solely on the nomenclature

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (6 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

of the codes or number of department code, is highly

unreasonable and unsustainable.

Learned counsel further relied upon the communication

dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-9) of the university whereby it was

again clarified that the degree of 'M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science

- Soil and Water Conservation' is equivalent to 'M.Sc. (Agriculture)

Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry'.

With the said submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioners prayed that the department be directed to verify the

documents of the petitioners and they be granted appointment.

8. Heard learned counsels and perused the material available

on record.

9. Two issues arise for consideration of this Court; firstly,

whether the degree of 'M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science - Soil and

Water Conservation' is equivalent to the degree in 'M.Sc. (Ag)

Chemistry/Soil Science' by a University established by law in India

and secondly, whether this Court can review the decision of an

Expert Committee.

This Court would first ponder over the second issue and

conclusion of the same would decide whether the first issue even

requires consideration. For the purpose, reproduction of conclusion

of the Expert Committee would be apt. The Expert Committee

opined/concluded as under :

"3- mDr ijh{kk esa lQy vH;FkhZ ujsUnz dqekj eh.kk ,oa vkseizdk"k xqtZj us cukjl fgUnq fo"ofo|ky; ls M.Sc. (Ag.) Soil and Water Conservation esa mikf/k izkfIr dh gS tks fuEu izdkj ls okafNr ;ksX;rk ls fHkUu ;k vyx fo'k; gS %& • cukjl fgUnq fo"ofo|ky; esa M.Sc.(Ag) Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry dk ,d i`Fkd foHkkx gS ftldk

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (7 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

dkslZ dksM 340 gS ,oa f"k{k.k "kqYd :i;s 3151 izfr leSLVj gS] tcfd M.Sc.(Ag) Soil Science- Soil and Water Conservation iw.kZr vyx fo'k; gS ftldk dkslZ dksM 702 gS ,oa f"k{k.k "kqYd :i;s 3150$25000 (Special Course Fee) izfr lsesLVj gSA ¼ifjf"k'B&IX,X½ • cukjl fgUnq fo"ofo|ky; }kjk lapkfyr foHkkxksa esa M.Sc.(Ag) Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry fo'k; esa SSC- 501, SSC-502, SSC-503, SSC-504, SSC-506, SSC-509, SSC-511, SSC-550, SSC-560 vkfn dkslZ lapkfyr gS tcfd M.Sc.(Ag) Soil Science - Soil and Water Conservation fo'k; esa SWC-501, SWC-502, SWC-504, SWC-506, SWC-511, SWC-550, SWC-560 vkfn dkslZ lapkfyr gSa rFkk mYysf[kr bu nksuksa fo'k;ksa dh fyf[kr izfrfyfi (Transcript) esa n"kkZ;s x;s fo'k; ,oa fo'k; dksM Hkh vyx vyx gSA ¼ifjf"k'B&VII, VIII½ • blh izdkj M.Tech in Agriculture Engineering (Soil and Water Conservation, Engineering under Special Courses of Study) Hkh ,d i`Fkd foHkkx esa lapkfyr gS ftldk dkslZ dksM 355 gS ,oa f"k{k.k "kqYd :i;s 3150$30000 (Special Course Fee) izfr leSLVj gSA ¼ifjf"k'B&IX,X½ • mDr lHkh lwpuk,a cukjl fgUnq fo"ofo|ky; dh oSclkbV ij miyC/k gSaA

4- mijksDrkuqlkj of.kZr rduhdh igyqvksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, fo"ks'kK lfefr }kjk bl izdj.k esa foKkiukuqlkj lgk;d d`f'k vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ¼d`f'k jlk;u½ dh HkrhZ gsrq okafNr "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls mYysf[kr nksuksa vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk esa Li'V :i ls fHkUurk dk vfHker fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA fjiksVZ jkT; ljdkj ds voyksdu ,oa vko";d dk;Zokgh gsrq lknj izLrqr gSA "

10. A bare perusal of the above conclusion makes it clear that

what has been compared by the Committee is the subject codes of

two post-graduation degree courses as conducted by BHU. The

Committee observed that BHU conducts one course in M.Sc.

(Agriculture) Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry (Course Code

340) and other course in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science - Soil

and Water Conservation (Course Code 702). The Committee then

quoted the subject codes of both these courses and the prescribed

fee for both of them. On basis of the same, the Committee

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (8 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

concluded that these are two different courses and cannot be said

to be equivalent.

In the specific opinion of this Court, the approach of the

Expert Committee has been total casual, unreasonable and

illogical. There is nothing in the report which can be termed to be

an opinion of the Experts.

11. This Court is not oblivious of the position of law which lays

down that the Courts cannot substitute its view in place of an

Expert Committee opinion and cannot acquire the role of an

expert while dealing with the matters of specialization. But then,

this Court cannot also ignore such Expert Committee report

wherein there is no application of mind and the same is, on the

face of it, totally fallacious and based on no material whatsoever.

A bare perusal of the so called Expert Committee Report as placed

on record in the present matter, makes it clear that the Committee

has not taken any effort even to compare the curriculum of both

the degree courses. Further, the Committee has not called for any

opinion/clarification from the University issuing the same, or from

any authorised agency, regarding the said two degree courses.

Further, in the opinion of this Court, the Expert Committee

report even seems to be misconceived as, while comparing the

subject codes, it has ignored the common subject codes of both

the degree courses and highlighted only the subject codes which

were different. A bare perusal of mark-list of the petitioners as

placed on record, specifies that almost 7 of the subject codes i.e.,

PGS 501 to PGS 506 and STAT 501 are the subjects totally

identical to that of the degree in Soil Science and Agricultural

Chemistry. Further, the subject codes SWC 560 and SWC 511 are

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (9 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

also the same subjects with codes SSC 560 and SSC 502. Meaning

thereby, the similar subject codes in both the degree courses have

evidently been ignored by the Expert Committee. Although this

Court is not required to act as an expert but then, the facts which

are clear and evident on the face of it, cannot also be ignored and

that too, when the issue pertains to the candidates who, after

having qualified the written examination as well as the interview

and having been selected, are being deprived of appointment of

which they are otherwise legally entitled to.

It would be relevant to mention here that this Court entered

into the comparison of the subjects of the degree course of the

petitioners and that of M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science &

Agricultural Chemistry (as relied upon by the Expert Committee)

on basis of the mark-list of one incumbent Mr. Hanuman Singh

Gurjar [possessing the degree in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Soil Science

and Agricultural Chemistry], as placed on record by learned

counsel for the respondent RPSC.

12. This Court derives its conclusion also from the fact that as

per the Schedule to the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service

Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules of 1978'), the prescribed

qualification for the post of Assistant Agriculture Research Officer

(Agriculture Chemistry) earlier, was -

"Atleast II Class M.Sc. Chemistry or Asso. I.A.R.I.

(Agriculture Chemistry or equivalent qualification".

The same was subsequently amended and as of now, the

requisite qualification for Assistant Agriculture Research Officer

(Agriculture Chemistry) is -

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (10 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

"IInd Class M.Sc. (Agriculture) Chemistry/Soil Science of a

University established by law in India".

Meaning thereby, the specific qualification in Chemistry as

prescribed earlier, has now been amended and the qualification of

M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Soil Science has also been added. The same

clearly implies that the degree in M.Sc.(Agriculture) Soil Science is

a degree equivalent to M.Sc. (Agriculture) Chemistry. Had the

intention been to prescribe the M.Sc. degree in any specific branch

of Soil Science only, it would have been prescribed in the said

manner. But the qualification prescribed in the Rules is simplicitor

M.Sc. (Ag) Chemistry/Soil Science. No addition, alteration or

filtration to the said prescribed qualification can be permitted by

any agency, may it be the recruiting agency itself. The recruiting

agency is also under an obligation to strictly abide by the

conditions/qualifications as prescribed in the statue and cannot of

its own, amend, alter or add anything to the said statutory

provisions.

13. In view of above observation and analysis, this Court is of

the clear view that the qualification of M.Sc. (Ag) Soil Science -Soil

and Water Conservation as possessed by the petitioners is

equivalent to the qualification of M.Sc.(Ag) Chemistry/Soil Science

prescribed vide advertisement dated 13.04.2018, being in

conformity with Section IV of the Schedule to the Rules of 1978.

14. In view of above conclusion, the writ petitions as preferred

by the petitioners deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The

respondent authorities are directed to verify the documents of the

petitioners and after verification of the same, if not found

ineligible because of any other aspect, offer appointment to them

[2024:RJ-JD:25311] (11 of 11) [CW-17948/2023]

on the post of Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture

Chemistry). The complete process be completed by the

respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of

receipt of certified copy of the present order.

15. The stay petitions and the pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J Vij/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)