Uttarakhand High Court
Deeksha Dhiman vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 4 March, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 41 of 2024
Deeksha Dhiman ........Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission .....Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Deeksha Dhiman, petitioner in person through video
conferencing.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission.
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2287 of 2023
Munabbar Ali ........Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Danish Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in
both these writ petition, they are heard together and being decided by
this common judgment.
2. In both these petitions, the challenge is made to a
communication dated 22.08.2023 of the respondent Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission, by which the petitioners were declared
ineligible for the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector and Cane
Development Inspector.
3. The respondent published an advertisement for Combined
State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Services on 09.08.2021. The
petitioners applied for the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector
and Cane Inspector. The essential qualification for the said posts was
Bachelor in Agriculture from a recognized University. Both the
petitioners are Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering from
Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. They
both appeared in preliminary examination, which was conducted on
12.12.2021. They were declared successful in the preliminary
examination. Thereafter, they appeared in the main examination,
which was conducted on 28.08.2022. They both were successful in
the main examination. But, thereafter, the candidature of the
petitioners was rejected on the ground that Bachelor of Technology in
Agriculture Engineering does not fall in the category of graduate in
Agriculture. The challenge is made to that communication by which
the petitioners were declared ineligible.
4. The respondent has filed its counter affidavit. According
to it, for the recruitment more than one lakh candidates had applied.
The applications were invited through online mode and based on the
claim as made by the candidates with regard to their eligibility, they
were permitted to appear in the preliminary examination. But, after
main examination, during document verification, it was revealed that,
in fact, the educational qualification that the petitioners possess is
distinct than what was advertised. The petitioners were B.Tech. in
Agriculture Engineering, whereas the eligible condition was
graduation in Agriculture. Therefore, according to the respondent, a
three member Expert Committee was constituted, which includes two
Professors from G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology.
The Committee gave an opinion that B.Tech. in Agriculture
Engineering is not equivalent to the graduation in Agriculture.
Thereafter, according to the respondent, the candidature of the
petitioner was rejected.
5. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Petitioner Deeksha Dhiman, present in person, would
submit that in one of the judgments, the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court has held that degree of B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is not
equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture. But, she would
submit that subsequent to it, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service
Selection Commission realized its mistake and in the subsequent
advertisement, when the application for recruitment to the post of
Technical Assistant (Group C) was published, in that the qualification
B.Tech. Agriculture Engineering has also been included as an
eligibility qualification along with B.Sc. in Agriculture. She would
submit that the University Grants Commission's list for graduate
courses includes B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering along with B.Sc.
in Agriculture. It is also argued by her that the essential qualification
for the posts in question is B.Sc. Agriculture and it does not exclude
B.Tech. from Agriculture Engineering. The petitioner in person would
also argue that she had been permitted to appear in the preliminary
examination, main examination and for the last four years, she has
been in this examination and in the midway, her candidature should
not be rejected on the ground that she is not eligible for the post. She
would submit that the respondent Commission has no right to waste
precious years of an aspirant in the manner it has been done.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Munabbar Ali would
submit that both i.e. the B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering and B.Sc.
in Agriculture are graduate courses and the petitioner has already
undergone long way in the recruitment process, therefore, the
candidature of the petitioner may not be rejected. He would also adopt
the arguments of the petitioner in person Ms. Deeksha Dhiman (in
WPSS No. 41 of 2024).
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
Commission would submit that the Commission had received more
than one lakh online applications and based on the claim that has
been made by the candidates, they were permitted to appear in the
preliminary examination and the main examination; but, during the
process of document verification, it was revealed that the educational
qualification possessed by the petitioners is distinct than what was
essentially required and advertised. He would submit that an Expert
Committee was constituted comprising two Professors from G.B. Pant
University of Agriculture and Technology, which gave an opinion that
B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is not equivalent to the graduation
in Agriculture, based on which the petitioners' candidature was
rejected. He would also submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court in the case of Amit Tiwari and 7 others v. State
of U.P. and Anr. (Special Appeal defective No. 122 of 2015), has held
that graduation in Agriculture is not equivalent to Bachelor of
Technology in Agriculture Engineering. He would submit that the
controversy is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court. Referring to the subsequent
advertisement made by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service
Selection Commission, learned counsel would submit that it was done
pursuant to the amendment in service rules.
9. It is true that the petitioners have already undergone long
way pursuant to the advertisement that was issued by the respondent.
But, that does not per se give any right to the petitioner to continue
the process if there is some discrepancy pointed out later. What is
argued by the respondent that in view of the large number of
applications that were received online, the candidates were initially
permitted to appear in the preliminary examination and thereafter in
the main examination.
10. Similar issue has, in fact, been decided by the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in the case of Amit Tiwari (supra). There also
the main educational qualification was graduation in Agriculture from
a recognized institution or University and the appellants in that case
had passed the B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering. Relying on the
judgment passed in the case of Anand Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and
others (Writ Petition No. 65506 of 2010) and Vijay Kumar Kamley v.
State of U.P. and another (Writ Petition No. 8736 of 2011), the Hon'ble
Court held that "The controversy, as was raised before the learned
Single Judge is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench.
We are in respectful agreement with the view of the Division
Bench that it would not be open to the Court to determine a
matter of equivalence by issuing a mandamus, particularly having
due regard to the fact that the Commission, after application of
mind, has held otherwise."
11. In the case of Amit Tiwari (supra), an argument was also
raised on behalf of the appellants in that case that the Indian Council
for Agriculture Research (ICAR) has given list of agriculture courses,
which includes B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering. But, the Hon'ble
Court held that "The ICAR has indicated in a broad sense the
undergraduate degrees in Agriculture. Among them are also
included degrees in Forestry, Home Science, Horticulture,
Fisheries Science, Food Science, Veterinary Science and Dairy
Technology. If the submission of the appellants were to be
accepted, all those degrees also would have be regarded as
equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture...".
12. In the instant case, the essential qualification is
graduation in Agriculture. The petitioners are Bachelor of Technology
in Agriculture Engineering. The Expert Committee report, which
comprises of two Professors from G.B. University of Agriculture and
Technology has opined that the B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is
not equivalent to B.Sc. Agriculture. Similarly, the controversy has
already been decided by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case
of Amit Tiwari (supra). This Court has no reason to take any different
view in the matter. Accordingly, no interference is warranted by this
Court and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
13. The writ petitions are dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
04.03.2025
Avneet/
