Uttarakhand High Court
Manali Chaudhary And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved on: 18.08.2025
Delivered on: 01.09.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1218 of 2024 (S/S)
Manali Chaudhary and others ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional, Chief Standing Counsel for the
State.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission.
JUDGMENT
Per: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to Rejection List
dated 03.07.2024, issued by the respondent no.4, the Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission ("the Commission"), whereby the
petitioners have been declared ineligible for the post of Sugar Cane
Supervisor.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection
Commission issued an advertisement on 08.01.2022 for
recruitment of 78 posts of Sugar Cane Supervisor. It appears that
process has not been taken to its logical ends. Its subsequent
events are as follows:-
i) On 01.11.2023, the Commission sought clarification from
Sugar Cane and Sugar Commissioner, Uttarakhand with
regard to educational qualification for the post of Sugar
Cane Supervisor. It was sought to be clarified that
according to the Rules, 02 years Diploma in Agriculture is
an essential qualification for Sugar Cane Supervisor, but
since after High School, the Diploma in Agricultural
Engineering is of 03 years, whether 03 years Diploma
would be valid or not?
ii) The Commissioner Sugar Cane Development and Sugar
Industry, by its communication dated 25.11.2023
informed to the concerned Secretary that 03 years
Diploma may also be valid for the position.
iii) On 14.12.2023, the Commission issued a fresh
advertisement inviting applications to fill up 78 vacancies
of Sugar Cane Supervisor. The essential qualifications for
the post is as follows:-
"A candidate for direct recruitment to the various
posts in the service:
1. Must have passed the intermediate (Agriculture)
Examination from the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, Uttaranchal or an
examination recognised by the Government as
equivalent thereto:
or
2. (a) Must have passed High School Examination from
the Board of High School and Intermediate
Education, Uttaranchal or an examination
recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto:
and
(b) Must possess two years diploma in agriculture
from a recognised institution."
iv) It is the case of the petitioners that they possess the
requisite qualifications, therefore, they participated in the
process. On 26.04.2024, the result was declared and the
petitioners were called for document verification. But
finally, the petitioners were held ineligible for the post on
the ground that they do not posses essential qualification,
as they possessed Diploma in Agricultural Engineering
instead of Diploma in Agriculture. The challenge is made
to it.
4. The respondent no.2/Directorate of Cane Development and
Sugar Industries Uttarakhand filed its counter affidavit. According to it,
the petitioner is devoid of merits. The Commission has filed its counter
affidavit. According to it, Diploma in Agricultural Engineering either for
02 years or 03 years is not a qualification for the position of Sugar Cane
Supervisor. By way of additional counter affidavit, the respondent
Commission has also stated that the petitioners do not possess the
essential qualification. Reference has been made to WPSS No.41 of 2024,
Deeksha Dhiman vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission connected
case, wherein this Court has held that graduation in Agriculture is not
equivalent to Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
are Bachelor in Agricultural Engineering, which is 03 years course. The
Commission has sought a clarification from the Government and the
Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand on 14.12.2023 had communicated
it to the Commission that the Diploma may be of 02 or 03 years for the
post of Sugar Cane Supervisor. This Communication is Annexure No.1 to
the supplementary affidavit dated 05.11.2024 of the petitioner. It is
argued that, in fact, in Uttarakhand, the only course is Diploma in
Agricultural Engineering, which is for 03 years. Accordingly, the
Commission was communicated by the State Government, but the
Commission did not take cognizance of it and rejected the candidature of
the petitioners on the wrong basis.
6. On the other hands, learned counsel for the Commission
submits that, as per the Rules, the qualification is 02 years Diploma in
Agriculture and unless the Rules are changed it cannot be read as 03
years Diploma in Agriculture or in Agriculture Engineering. It is
submitted that in a similar controversy, this Court has already held in the
case of Deeksha Dhiman (supra) that the Bachelor in Agriculture is not
equivalent to the Bachelor in Technology in Agriculture Engineering. In
fact, in the case of Deeksha Dhiman (supra) this Court has an occasion to
deal with a similar kind of controversy and in para 12 observed as
follows:-
"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."
7. Recruitment is to be made in accordance with the Rules.
The eligibility qualification cannot be changed by the recruiting
agency. It is true that in the instant case, the essential qualification
inter alia is, "Must possess 02 years Diploma in Agriculture from
a recognized Institution". This is 'THE' qualification. It does not
speak any equivalence. It is also not minimum qualification.
Therefore, there was no occasion to seek any clarification by the
Commission. The Commission had sought clarification and the
Government has responded by its communication dated
14.12.2023 that 03 years Diploma may also be considered. Even
this communication of the State Government cannot give any
benefit to the petitioners. The petitioners are 03 years Diploma
holders in Agricultural Engineering. The petitioners do not hold
Diploma in Agriculture. They do not hold any Diploma in
Agriculture for 02 years. They posses 03 years Diploma in
Agricultural Engineering. In the absence of any equivalence given in
the essential qualification, the petitioners cannot be said to be
eligible for the position, to which, they applied. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the Commission has rightly rejected the
candidatures of the petitioners. There is no reason to make any
interference in the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
8. The petition is dismissed, accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.09.2025
Sanjay
SANJAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686d
f4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001,
KANOJIA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450
A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY
KANOJIA
Date: 2025.09.01 16:44:58 +05'30'
