Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/938/2020 on 31 March, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.934 of 2020
with
WPSS No.938 of 2020
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhagwat
Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi,
Advocate for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Since common questions of law and
fact are involved in these writ petitions,
therefore they were heard together and
are being decided by a common
judgment. However for the sake of
brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S)
No.934 of 2020 alone are being
considered and discussed.
Petitioners applied for the post of
Additional Private Secretary in
Secretariat Administration Department,
pursuant to an advertisement issued by
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.
Petitioners were held to be ineligible on
the ground that qualification possessed
by them does not meet the requirement
of the Rules. Petitioners have filed this
writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the Respondents,
particularly Respondent No. 2 to forthwith take a
decision on the representations submitted by the
petitioners (Annexure No. 23 to the writ petition)
whereby a request has been made to constitute
Equivalence Committee in the matter.
A-1 To issue a writ order or direction, in the nature of
certiorari to quash the Notification dated 14.10.2019
and office memo dated 07.01.2020 issued by
respectively to the writ petition) in so far as it relates
to the petitioners."
This Court on 27.09.2022 passed
the following order:
"Petitioners applied for the post of Additional
Private Secretary pursuant to an advertisement issued by
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 31.7.2017. All
the petitioners possess Bachelor Degree in Computer
Application (BCA). Petitioners have been held to be
ineligible for appointment as Additional Private Secretary.
Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this
Court challenging rejection of their candidature.
In para 10 of the writ petition, qualification
required for appointment to the post of Additional Private
Secretary is reproduced, which is extracted below:
"(iv) ¼d½ vfuok;Z 'kSf{kd vgZrk&
¼,d½ Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls
Lukrd dh mikf/k ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr mlds led{k dksbZ vgZrk rFkk
ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh [email protected] fo'ofo|ky; ls 01 o'khZ; dEI;wVj
ikB~;Øe dk izek.k i=A
vFkok
dEI;wVj foKku fo'k; ds lkFk Lukrd mikf/kA
¼nks½ fgUnh vk'kqys[ku esa U;wure 80 'kCn izfr feuV vkSj
dEI;wVj ij fgUnh Vad.k esa U;wure 8000 dh&fMizs'ku (Key Depression)
izfr ?kaVk dh xfrA**
It is contended on behalf of petitioners that BCA
degree possessed by them is equivalent to Bachelor
Degree in Computer Science. Respondents, however,
contend that qualification possessed by petitioners does
not meet the requirement of advertisement issued for the
post of Additional Private Secretary, therefore,
petitioners' candidature was rightly rejected.
Thus, the sole question which falls for
consideration before this Court is whether the
qualification possessed by petitioners can be treated as
equivalent to the qualification mentioned in the
advertisement.
The question whether a qualification is equivalent
to some other qualification mentioned in the
advertisement/rules can only be decided by subject
experts. This Court, while exercising power of judicial
review, will not go into such questions. Having regard to
the fact that right to be considered for public
employment is valuable right available to every citizen,
therefore, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be
met if the matter is referred to Secretary, Department of
Appointment & Personnel for constituting a Committee
consisting of not less than three faculty members serving
in State/Central Universities. Such Committee shall be
constituted within two weeks from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. The Committee shall
submit its report within six weeks from the date of its
constitution.
Petitioners shall be at liberty to produce evidence
in support of their claim that the qualification possessed
by them is equivalent to the qualification mentioned in
the advertisement.
List this matter on 15.12.2022.
The report of the Committee shall be brought on
record in the meantime."
Pursuant to the said order, an
Expert Committee was constituted. The
Expert Committee has submitted its
report, which is enclosed with
supplementary affidavit filed by Mr.
Hanuman Prasad Tiwary, Deputy
Secretary, Department of Secretariat
Administration, Government of
Uttarakhand.
Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the Expert
Committee, constituted in terms of order
of this Court, has opined that the
qualification possessed by the petitioners
is equivalent to the qualification
mentioned in the advertisement.
However, this submission is disputed by
learned counsel for the respondents, who
submits that the opinion given by Expert
Committee is only a prima facie opinion
and what has been held in Committee's
report is that the course content of the
qualification possessed by petitioners is
about 75% similar to the syllabus of the
degree mentioned in the Rules/
Advertisement.
Since decision regarding
equivalence of two separate
qualifications has to be taken by the
Appointing Authority, therefore, this
Court refrains from taking any decision
in the matter. The writ petitions are,
therefore, disposed of with a direction to
Secretary, Secretariat Administration
Department to examine Committee's
report and take decision, as per law,
within a period of six weeks' from the
date of production of certified copy of
this order.
The decision, so taken, shall be
communicated to the Selecting Body,
within two weeks thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
31.03.2023
Arpan
