Dismissed

Ashish Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Dec 2010WA/101/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed three writ appeals arising from writ petitions challenging an order denying appointment to appellants for posts of Rural Agriculture Extension Officers. The Court held that statutory recruitment rules prescribed B.Sc. Agriculture exclusively, and subsequent administrative clarification expanding eligibility violated the principle against altering selection rules post-e

What did the court decide?

All writ appeals filed against the impugned order dismissing the petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ashish Kumar Singh Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

Divsioin Bnche: Hbn’leb Shir Sunil Kmaru Shain & Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava’,’ JJ.

¶3

Writ Aealpp No. 82 ofr2009 APPELLANTS Ahrcna Rout and anotehr Versus RESPONDENTS: State of Chattisarhhg and ahnoter

¶4

Witr^A'/ npealNo. 10 1 o f 2009 APPANSELLT “alsh Kumar ngh and others’ Vsersu RESPONDENTS State of C h attisgarh and otersh

¶5

RESPONDENTS

¶6

And

¶7

Writ Appeal No. 122/ 2009 AETSPPLLAN Amihbrs Chandr‘kara and oteshr Versus RESNDPOENTS S tate of Cattsgaranhhihd oteshr

¶8

Judgment for co

¶9

Sdla Mamndra^{MohanSlmvastav} Judge \VVJW Hon’ble Shir‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha,‘ J. r Sdl— 3% W‘W

¶10

Post for prohouncement ofjudgment I} . 12-2010 (7a ,, t /~7 Sd/-

¶11

¶12

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARH} : BILASPUR

¶13

DB: Hon’ble^{ShriSunilKumarSinha8a} Hon’ble Shri^{ManindraMohanShrivastava,JJ.}

¶14

Writ Aggeal^No.82of2009

¶15

APPELLANTS PETITIONERS

¶16

Archna^{Rout,D/oShriParsurarnRout,} aged about²³ years,^{R/o,behindCivil} Court, Ward No.21, Manendragarh, District Korea (CG)

¶17

.Harish Singh, S/o Shri Narad Ram Sinha, aged about²² years,^R/oSana Road, .Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG)

¶18

Versus

¶19

a \I-

¶20

RESPONDENTS: . State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.‘ Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶21

1. The Director, Agriculture, Agriculture Directorate,^{Mantralaya,Raipur(CG)}

¶22

Apgearance:

¶23

Shri Chandresh^{Shrivastava,counselfortheappellants.}

¶24

Shri J.A.^{Lohanai,PanelLawyerfortheState/respondents.}

¶25

Writ Agpeal^No.101of2009

¶26

APPELLANTS 1. Ashish Kumar Singh son of Shri A.K.Singh, aged about 21 years,

¶27

PETITIONERS resident of Behind Dewangan Floor Mill, Chandash Kunj Mohlai Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶28

.Santosh Kumar Dewangan aged about 23 years^{sonofShriPoonaram} Dewangan, resident of Near Dewangan Dharrnshala, Gaya Nagar, House^{No.4/416Distt.Durg(C.G.)}

¶29

. Narayan Kumar Sarkar, aged about 22 years, son of Late Shri^LalaRam

¶30

g1,
(/7

¶31

Sarkar, resident of village and post Fingshwar, Tah. Rajim, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶32

. Bhupendra Kumar Verma, aged^about 23 years, son of Shri Ravi Kumar Verma, resident of village and post Deorbija Tah. Berla Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶33

. Tameshwar Lal Sahu aged about 26 son of Shri Manrakhan Lal

¶34

years, Sahu, resident of Village^{Diyabati,P—} Darra, Tah. Gurur, District Durg (C.G.)

¶35

. Kiran Verma D/o Shri Lalji Verma, aged about 21 years,^{R/oShitalapara,} Bhilai^— 3, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶36

. Om Prakash Mahale, aged about 24 years, son of Shri Anand Mahale, resident of Gunj Thana, P.S. Colony, Block^— A, First Floor,^{FafadihChowk,} Raipur (C.G.)

¶37

; Dushyant Kumar son^{ofShriBirendra} Kumar aged about 22 years,^resident of Stambh Chowk, Mini Mata Nagar,Utai RAod, Newai, Bhilai, Distt.Durg (C.G.)

¶38

. Vinay Kumar Nayak, aged about 23 son of Shri Rohit Kumar

¶39

years, Nayak, resident of 54-F,^{RisaliSector,} Bhilai^{Nagar,Distt.Durg} (C.G.)

¶40

1. Mukesh Kumar son of^KS. Sonwani, aged about 23 years, resident of J/ 18/C Maroda Sector Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶41

1. Yogeshwar Singh Patel son of Late Shri Chitren^Singh Patel, aged about 37 years,^{residentofwardNo.} 10 Qtr. No. 5, Near^{KabirkutiBemetara,Distt.} Durg (CG)

¶42

1. Nitesh Kumar^Damle, aged about 24 years,^{sonofShriM.L.Damle,resident} of Gota Tola, P.S. Mohala, TAh. Mohala, Distt.^Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶43

l3. Jaishree Verma,^agedabout23 years, daughter^{ofShriLaljiVerma,resident} of Shitalapara^Bhilai—3, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶44

l4. Sunil Kumar^Madhariya, aged about 23 years, son of Shri Shankarlal Madhariya, R/o Qtr. No. 409/5/A, Balco. Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶45

. Purendra^DevVerma, aged about²⁴ years,^{sonofShriM.L.Verma,resident}

¶46

	16. 17. 18. 19.	of I Pocket, 3/D ^{Marora Sector Bhilai,} Dist. Durg (C.G.) Manish Kumar Sahu aged about 23 years, ^{son of Shri K.R.Sahu, resident} of 30/C ,HSCL Colony, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, ^{Distt. Durg}(C.G.) Manoj Kumar S/o Harish Chandra, aged about 26 years, R/o village Joratarayee, Post Office Bhathgaon (R) Tah. Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Vineet Das ^{son of John Samuel Das,} aged about ³⁰years, ^{resident of Near} Railway Gate Tumgaon Road, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Rakesh Singh Yadav, aged about 21 years, son of Shri Vidhya Shankar Singh Yadav, resident of Near Pente
	20.	Costal Church Nirmala S.T.D. Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Tilendra ^{Kumar Sahu, aged about 22} years, son of Shri Namdas Sahu, resident of Neelam ^{9/F Virat Property} Dealer, Dhanora Road, Borsi, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
		Versus
RESPONDENTS	1.	State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary ^Deptt. of Agriculture, Dau Kalyan Singh ^{Bhawan, Raipur}(C.G.)
	2. 3. 4.	The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director, Deptt. of Agriculture, Directorate, ^Raipur(CG) , The Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi University ^{Krishak Nagar Raipur}(CG)

¶47

¶48

Appearanc z Shri Praveen^{Dhurandhar,counselfortheappellants.} Shri J.A. Lohanai, Panel Lawyer^forthe State/respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶49

And

¶50

Writ Appeal No.^12212009

¶51

APPELLANTS PETITIONERS

¶52

Ambrish Chandrakar s/o Sri Viyash Narayan Chandrakar, aged about²⁶ res1dent of Near Congress

¶53

years, Bhavan Balod Tah511 Balod D1str1ct Durg (C G )

¶54

.Uttam Tamrakar, son of Sri P.LTamrakar, aged about 24 years, Resident of House No. 121/3, Tamerpara,^{’Durg,DistrictDurg} (C.G.)

¶55

. Toshan Kumar^{ChandrakarsonofSri} Yashwant Chandrakar,^agedabout26 resident of Mono^Niwas,Ward

¶56

years, No. 18, New Ravanbhatha, Mahasmund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) Pankaj Kumar Nag, son of Sri Ram Kumar aged^about25 years,^resident of village and Post Shankergarh Para) Samri, Tahsil Kusmi,

¶57

(Block District Surguja (C.G.) Shashank Shukla, son of Sri Yashwant Shukla, aged about 24 res1dent of Sundar Nagar

¶58

years, Mahadev Ghat^Road Near RaJkishori Vivah Bhavan Ralpur Tahs11 and District^Raipur (C.G.)

¶59

. Mukesh Kumar^son of Sri Halakhore resident

¶60

Sahu, aged about²⁵ years, of village Murkhusara, Post Aanvari, Police Station and Tahsil Charama, District^Kanker (C.G.) Naveen Kumar^{Dewangan,sonofShri} Jeevrakhan^{Lal,agedabout25} years, C/ o K L Udyaniki Mahavidyalaya, Gunderdahi^Road Pohimadih (Balak Chhatravas) Village 85 Post Pohiya, District^Durg (C.G.)

¶61

.Nirmal Singh Jangre, son of Sri Paritosh Singh^Jangre aged about²⁴ Rural Agriculture^Development

¶62

years Officer Block Paudhekunj, District JanJgir-Champa (C^G )

¶63

.Satish Kumar Verma son of Sri Sukhuram Verma aged about 23 C/o Santkumar^Verma Village

¶64

years Kodva Post Sasaha, Police Station

¶65

¶66

¶67

Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) 10. Khomeshwar Prasad Soni, son of Sri Ramvishal Soni, aged about 24 years, R/o village and Post Amadad (Pendra) Via Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 11. Sunil Kumar Sahu Son of Sri Chheduram Sahu, aged about 26 years, Resident of Quarter No. SF 895, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Colony, Kosabadi, Korba (East) District Korba (C.G.) 12 . Gajendra Kumar Karas, son of Sri Keshav Prasad Karas, aged about 24 years, C/o Shri K.P.Karas, Behind Mamta Electronics, Sindhi Camp, P.O. Tilda Newara (C.G.) Raipur Distt. 13. Kumari Rashmi Kumhar,. Daughter of Sri Girwar Kumhar, aged about 22 years,^{C/oK.L.HorticultureCollege,} Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 14. Bhagyasri Gupta Daughter of Sri Jem Prakash Gupta, aged about 23 years, C/o Mandakini Gils Hostel, Room No. 218, Krishak Nagar, Jora E.G.K.V.V. Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 15. Harendra Kumar Sahu, son of Sri Bharat Kumar Sahu, aged about22 C/o Village Banjari, Post years, Arjund, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) 16. Anthresius Tigga, son of Shri Matius Tigga, aged about 25 years, C/o Shri Hemchand Yayak, . E.G.K.V.V. Krishank Nagar, V.C . Campus, Raipur (C.G.) 17. Nand Kumar Son of Sri Ghanaram aged about 23 years, C/o^villageIra, Tahsil Kurud, District, Dhamtari (C.G.) 18. Pravin Ramteke, Son of Sri T.R.Ramteke, aged about 25 years, Resident of House No. 40/1175, Sanjay Nagar Main Road, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 19. Vinod Kumar, Koreti, Son of Shri S.R.Koreti, aged about 28 years,^C/o Shri S.R.Koreti, Qr. No. 111—112 Double MIG, B Block Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar,

¶68

Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)

¶69

1. Bhilendra Kumar Sahu son of Sri Romlal Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o Village .Bohira, P.O. Palari, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.)

¶70

1. Keshendra Kumar son of Sri Giriraj Son, aged about 23 years, C/o village Bhatheli, P.O. Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶71

. Dihu Ram Patel, son of Sri Chhabilal Patel, aged about 26 yearsa, C/o village Senpuwa, Post Chhati, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶72

1. Kumari Aruna Tirki son of Sri Santosh Kuzur, aged about 25 years, C/o LIG 579, Sector 2 Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Danganiya, Near Goal Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur

¶73

- (C.G.)

¶74

1. Jayant Kumar son of Sri Bihari Lal, aged about 23‘years, C/o Post Office Parsada, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶75

1. Thaneshwar Singh son of Sri Munniram, aged about 24 years, C/o Shivam Hostel, Room No. 22, I.G.K.V. Krishank Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶76

1. Ghanshyam Korram, son of Sri C.R.Korram, aged about 25 years, C/o Shiv Chowk,: Baniyapara, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District

¶77

t Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶78

1. Bhupendra Kumar son of Sri Loknath, aged about 24 years, C/o Pendravahi, Abadipara, Amba Chowk, Police Station and Post Kanvvar, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C,G.)

¶79

1. Naval Kishore Sahu, son of Sri Brijesh Kurnar Sahu, aged^about24 C/o Village and Post Pallari,

¶80

years, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.)

¶81

1. Devendra Mohan son of Sri Doman Singh, aged about 26 years, C/o \n‘llage Chandragej, Post and Tahsil Gundardehi, District^Durg (C.G.)

¶82

1. Dilip Kumar Bande son of Sri Diloram Bande, aged^about25 years, Co/ Borsi Bhatha, Ward^no.5OPost

¶83

	Office Borsi Colony, Durg, District
	Durg (C.G.)
31.	Zuned Khan son of Sri Nasir Khan,
	aged about 23 years, Resident of
	Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur
	(co)
32.	Harpal Singh son of Sri Gyan Singh,
	aged about 24 years, Satyam Balak
	Chhatrawas, Room No. 66,
	Agriculture College, Krishak Nagar,
	Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur
	(C.G.)
33.	Romash Kumar Suryawanshi son of
	Sri Rameshwar Singh Suryawanshi,
	aged about 24 years, C/o Shivam
	Hostel, Room No. O7, Agriculture
	College, Krishak Nagar,Jora, Raipur,
	Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)
34.	Ukesh Kumar Chandrawanshi, Son
	of Shri D.S.Thakur, aged about 24
	years, ^{C/o Village Kandul Post Office}
	Kandul, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg
	(C.G.)
35.	Sameer Kumar Son of Sri Aangar
	Say, aged about 24 years, C/o
	village Sontarai, Post Devgarh,
	Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja
	(C.G.)
36.	Shailendra Kumar Vinshi,
S	/oRameshwar PrasadVinshi, aged
	about 2H years, R/o village Chalta,
	Post Soor (Sitapur) District Surguja
	(C.G.)
.	Hardik Tank, son of Sri Bhimgi‘
	Tank, aged about 23 years, village
	Kolchure (Pujari ^{Para) Post Kolapur,}
	Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar
	(C.G.)
38.	Manok Kumar Paikra Son of Sri
	Rajkumar P aikra, aged about 24
	years, R/o village Pahanda, Post
	Mijhunwagaon (Kota) District
	Bilaspur (C.G.)
39.	Pravin Kumar Bharti son of Sri'
	Chhatrapati Ram, aged about 27
	years, R/o village and Post
	Pratapgarh, Tahsil Sitapur, District
	Surguja (C.G.)
40.	Sheikh Faridudin Ansari, son of Sri
	Sheikh Badruddin Ansari, aged
	about 24 years, R/o village and ^Post
	Dharsinva,DistrictRaipur,(C.G.)
41.	Pavan Kumar Son of Sri ^{Gopal Ram,}

¶84

aged ^{about 25}years, ^{R/o Vill} Post Soor, Tahsil Sitapur, D Surguja (C.G.) Pradeep Kumar Lakra, Son Subhash Lakra, aged abo years, C/o Sri S.R.Koreti, 1 Vijeta Complex, New R Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and Suman ^Lal Patel, son of Sri Lal ^{Patel, aged about 24 yea} Room No. 71, Satyam Chha Agriculture College, Krishak Jora, Raipur, Tahsil and Raipur (C.G.) 42. Raipur (C.G.) 43.	^{age and} istrict of Sri ut 25 11—112, ajendra District ^Mohan ^{rs, C/o} trawas Nagar, District
RESPONDENTS Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh thro Secretary Deptt. of Agricultur Bhavan, ^{Mantralaya, Raipur (C} Director, Agriculture Dir Chhattisgarh, ^{Raipur (C.G.)} Registrar, Indira Gandhi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Raipur (C.G.) Writ ^{Apyeals ulS}2 ^{(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Cour} to Division ^{Bench) Act, 2006}	ugh the e, DKS ^.G.) ectorate Krishi Nagar, ^{t [Apyeal}
Agpearance: Smt. Hamida ^{Siddique, counsel for the appellants.} Shri J.A. Lohanai, ^{Panel Lawyer for the} State/re No. 1 &2.	s pondents
J Per Manindra ^{Mohan Shrivastava, J.} U D G ^{M E N T} (Delivered ^on l ^{'5#‘December, 2010)}

¶85

By^{theaforesaidintra—Courtappeals,correctness,legalityand} validity of common^{orderdated20thMarch,2009} passedⁱⁿ w.P (S)^{No.2845/08,WP} (S)^{No.3118/08,WP(S)No.2824/08} 8L WP. (S)^{No.4568/08,hasbeenassailedbytheappellants.}

¶86

. Writ Appeal No. 82/09 arises out of W.P (S) No.4568/08, Writ Appeal No.101/09 arises out of W.P. (S)^No.3118/08 8t, Writ Appeal No.122/09 arises out of WP. (S) No.2824/08.

¶87

. Vide impugned order, all the aforesaid writ petitions, out of which present appeals arise, were decided as common question of law and fact was involved in the batch of aforementioned writ petitions. . Facts necessary and relevant for decision of the aforesaid appeals are that an advertisement dated 31st October, 2007 (filed^{asAnnexureA-3inW.A.No.122/09)wasissuedbythe} Directorate, Agriculture, State of Chhattisgarh, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer (hereinafter^referred to as “R.A.E.O.”). The last date for submission of application was 26.11.2007. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.82/09, arising out of W.P. (S) No.4568/08, are possessed of the degree of B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology); the appellants in Writ Appeal No.101/09, arising out of W.P(S) No.3118/08, are possessed of degree of B.Tec. (Agriculture Engineering) 8L M.Tec. (Agriculture Engineering), whereas appellants in W.A. No.122/09, arising out of W.P. (S)^{No.2824/08,are} possessed^{ofdegreeofB.Sc.} (Horticulture) and M.Sc. (Agriculture). Pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.10.2007, the appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals also submitted their applications

¶88

¶89

offering their candidature^{forappointmenttothe} post^ofRural Agriculture Extension Officer.

¶90

The advertisement,^inclause 1 thereof, prescribed graduateⁱⁿ agriculture as essential educational qualification. The appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals were permitted to write examination for selection to the post of R.A.E.O. After examination, result was^{declaredon29.12.2007} {Annexure^P— 29 in W.P. (S) No.2824/O8}. The petitioners were declared successful and they were placed in the select list. In the 'meantime, the State Government^{issuedaletter/memodated} 28.1.2008 addressed to the Director, Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur {Annexure^P—33inW.P (S)^No.2824/08} in which it was stated that^the State Govt. recognizes B.Sc. i (Agriculture)^, B . Sc. (Horticulture) , B . Sc. Agriculture (Biotechnology)^andB.Tech. as graduate in Agriculture.^The aforesaid memo was issued with reference to letter dated 1.1.2008 of the^{Director,Agriculture.Onthebasisofthesaid} memo/letter dated 28.1.2008, the appellants, though not degree, were^{alsotreatedas} possessed^ofB.Sc. (Agriculture) leading to their selection. However, thereafter, the qualified State Govt. issued^{orderdated7.5.2008} {filed^{asAnnexureP-l} in W.P (S)^No. 2824/08}^bywhich earlier letter/memo^dated 28.1.2008 and letter dated 10.4.2008 were cancelled with immediate effect^{anditwasstatedthereinthat,as} per^rules, those who are possessed of minimum educational

¶91

¶92

¶93

qualification of Agriculture graduate (B.Sc. Agriculture) be selected and appointments^{orderbeissued.}

¶94

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.5.2008, the appellants in^{theaforesaidwritappealsfiledtheirrespective} writ petitions. By^{theimpugnedcommonorder} passed^inthe batch of writ petitions,^{learnedSingleJudgehasdismissedall} the writ petitions^{holdingthatthe} advertisement prescribed in Agriculture as the minimum educational graduate and the appellants, undisputedly, were not qualification possessed of^{thesaidqualificationsofB.Sc.} (Agriculture).^The learned Single Judge^{heldthatafterthe} process^{ofselectionwas} initiated by issuance^{ofadvertisementdated} 31.10.2007, requisite qualification prescribed^{forappointmenttothepostofR.A.E.O.could} not be changed. It was held that^{inclusionofother} qualifications and recognizing them as equivalent to, and included in the qualification of Agriculture graduate Vide memo dated 28.1.2008, after holding the examination and during the selection process pursuant^{toadvertisement,wasnotpermissible,asthisamountedto} changing the rules during the process of selection which is not under the law. It was thus held that permissible. withdrawal/cancellation^{ofletterdated28.1.2008wasofnorelevance} and even if the petitioners were allowed to participate in the examination^andfound successful, in the scrutiny, they were not entitled to appointment as they are not possessed of requisite qualification^{asprescribedintheadvertisement.}

¶95

évx”

¶96

Learned counsel for the appellant appearing in W.A. No.122/O9 has contended that the issuance of letter dated 21.8.2008, recognizing other qualifications, namely B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. Agriculture (Biotechnolog) and B.Tech as graduate in Agriculture qualifications, did not amount to any change in the prescription of minimum educational in the advertisement dated qualification prescribed 31.10.2007 as all those qualifications fall under the qualification of Agriculture graduate and therefore, the appellants were possessed of the minimum required qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of R.A.E.O.. It was further contended^{thatthesaidletterdated} 28. 1.2008^was only^{explanatoryinnatureinViewofthememo} dated 1.1.2008 of the Director, Agriculture and the State Govt, having rightly issued such a clarification, was not in withdrawing/canceling the same by subsequent justified letter dated 7.5.2008.

¶97

Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to various documents (Annexures^A-2, A3, A6 85 A—7 filed along with W.A. No. 122/09) which were^{filedasAnnexuresP—37,P—28,} P-33 8a P—31 respectively in Writ^Petition (S)^No.2824/08, as also referring to Annexure A-4, mark sheet of M.Sc. (Agriculture)^{ofoneShashiBhushanSinghandAnnexureA—S,} mark sheet of B.Sc. (Herticulture) of the same person submitted that Agriculture graduate^{encompasseswithinitself} and includes not only B.Sc. (Agriculture) but also B.Sc.

¶98

(Horticulture) and B.Tech. In the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, it was, therefore, not a case that after issuance of advertisement, there was any change in the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of R.AIE.O. Consequently, subsequent order of the Government passed on 7.5.2008, after the appellants were treated as qualified^and allowed to participateⁱⁿ the examination and then selected, was wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that all these aspects were not considered byv learned Single Judge before coming to the conclusion that subsequent explanation dated 28.1.2008 had the effect of expanding and including qualifications other than the qualification prescribed^{intheadvertisement.}

¶99

¶100

Learned counsel for the appellants appearing in W.A. No.82/ 10^'made similar submissions by referring to Annexure A—2 (filed as Annexure P-3 in W.P. (S) No.4568/08), with specific reference to Clauses 2.22, 3.05 85 7.01 thereof that those who are possessed of B.Sc. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. Horticulture or B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnolog) or B.Tech. have all been recognized as Agriculture graduates only. He “Agriculture argued that the words Graduates” occurring in the advertisement is not^{confinedtoB.Sc.} (Agriculture) only but includes all those qualifications pertaining^totheFaculty “Agriculture of Agriculture. In his submission, the word Graduate” as mentioned in the^{advertisementalwaysmeantto} include all the degrees as aforementioned and vide letter

¶101

dated 28.1.2008, it was only^explainedand it cannot^besaid that other qualifications^{weresubsequentlyaddedinaddition} in the to the minimum educational qualification prescribed advertisement.^{Hefurtherarguedthattheword“Agriculture”} as defined^inSection2 (i)^{oftheIndiraGandhiKrishiVishwa} Vidayala^Adhiniyam, 1987 (hereinafter^{referredtoas“theAct} of 1987”) is very wide^{andcomprehensiveandtherefore,the} word^{“Agriculture”occurringintheadvertisementhas} to be understood in that sense only which^{wouldincludevarious} branches^{andfacultyofcoursesrelatingtoAgriculture,be} it B.Sc.(Horticulture), B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology) or B.Tech. In order^{tobuttress‘hissubmissions,learnedcounsel} for the appellants placed^{relianceuponthedecisionsinthe} case of Dr.^M.C.Gu ta. 8a Ors.^{Vs.Dr.ArunKumarGu} ta 8; Ors.1, N Suresh Nathan^{andanotherVs.UnionofIndia} 85 Ors.2, Dhanajay^Malik 85 Ors.^Vs. State of Uttaranchal 8a Ors.3.

¶102

Learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No.101/O9 also argued on similar^{linesbysubmittingthatthe} qualification in the advertisement was Agriculture graduate prescribed which could not be given a narrow and strict meaning to mean only B.Sc. Agriculture. According to him also, the holding various degrees like B.Sc. (Horticulture), graduates B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology) and B.Tech. are all

¶103

1 (1979) 2 scc 339

¶104

2 1992 Suppl. (1)^scc584

¶105

3 2008 AIR scw 2158

¶106

’\

¶107

¶108

Agriculture graduates and letter dated 28.1.2008 only explained that those qualifications were also implicit in qualification of graduate in Agriculture prescribed in the advertisement and it was not any new addition so as to say that subsequent to advertisement any qualification^werealso included in the prescription of educational qualification^stated in the advertisement.

¶109

On the other hand learned counsel for the^{respondentshas} supported the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that the^word “$cl§ W” occurring in the advertisement clearly meant that the educational qualification^wasB.Sc. in Agriculture and nothing more.^He submitted that though, after the process of selection had commenced, a letter was issued on 28.1.2008, later on, the same was cancelled vide letter dated 7.5.2008 as the qualification B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology) and B.Tech. (Agriculture^Engineering ),^B.Tech. (Dairy^Technologi) are not one and the same and they are qualifications in different discipline (subjects). Referring to syllabus for under graduate programme^{leadingtotheaward} of B.Sc. (Ag./Hort./Biotech.), B.Tech.(D.T.), B.Tech. Agril. Engg.) and B.VSc. 8a AH, it has been submitted that^theyall are different discipline (subjects) therefore, Agriculture in view of the graduate^{wouldonlymeanB.Sc.} (Agriculture) statutory prescription of qualification under Chhattisgarh

¶110

Service^Rule, 1972 Subordinate^Agriculture (Non-Ministerial) (hereinafter^{referredtoaS"‘theRulesof1972”).}

¶111

We have given^{ouranxiousconsiderationtothesubmission} through^the made^{bylearnedcounsel} for the parties, gone Single^Judge and perused^the order passed^bythelearned records. 13. The learned^{SingleJudgeafterconsideringthepleadingofthe} parties^{inthebatchofwritpetitions,whicharesubstantially} also^{takingintoconsideration} similarⁱⁿ all the petitions^as the stand^{takenbytherespondents} in^theirreturn, fieldⁱⁿ W.P. (S)^{No.3118/08,applyingtheprinciplelaiddowninthe} matter^{ofK.Man'ushreeVs.StateofAndhraPradeshand} another4,^{AshokJumarSonkarVs.UnionofIndia&0rs581,} Director, SCTI for Medical Science 8a Technologv 8a another^{Vs.M.Pushkaranéhascometotheconclusionthat} once the process^{ofselectioncommencedvideAdvertisement} dated 31.10.2007, inclusion or further^{extension/expansion} after holding the examination during of any qualification is not to the advertisement, selection process pursuant permissible^{andthereafterwithdrawalofthesaidexplanation} is also^{ofnorelevance.Ithasalsobeenheldintheimpugned} or modification of the order that no extension/expansion in the as prescribed requisite educational qualification It has is permissible. advertisement^{duringselectionprocess}

¶112

4 (2008)^3scc512

¶113

5 (2007)^4scc54 6 (2003)^1scc448

¶114

¶115

' €367

¶116

also been held that even if the petitioners, appellants herein, have been permitted to write examination and during scrutiny they have been found successful, they are not entitled to appointment as they do not possess requisite qualification as prescribed^{intheadvertisement.}

¶117

In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and focus our attention on’ the issue arising for consideration in the aforesaid writ appeals, it is relevant to refer to the educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 30.1.2007. A perusal of the advertisement in clause 1 thereof under the title^“E03 $1 W 1am rd W” mentions “arm—c5 am errant —$cf& we”. The “ails W” as mentioned in the advertisement qualification^of is obviously for the purposes of making appointment to the post^{ofRuralAgriculturalExtensionOfficer.} It has not been " disputed by any of the parties before the Court that the re— designation relates to the post known as Village^LevelWorkers (in short^“V.L.W.") as occurring in the relevant Recruitment Rules known as M.P. Subordinate Agriculture (Non— Ministerial) Service Rules, 1972. This would be clear from the averments made by respondent/State^{intheirreturn,which} has not been substantially disputed by^the petitioner^byfiling rejoinder. Thus, it is clear that the advertisement^wasissued for appointment to the post of R.A.E.O. (V.L.W.) which are cadre post, recruitment to which is governed by statutory rules framed by^{theGovernorin} exercise of power conferred

¶118

under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Those Rules have been placed on record as Annexure A—9 along with an application for taking documents on record in WA. No.122/09.

¶119

Schedule^—III appended to the Rules of 1972, which have been filed by the respondents/State in their return in W.P. (S) No.4568/O8 clearly and unequivocally prescribed B.Sc. (Agriculture) as educational qualification for appointment to the post of R.A.E.O. The said qualification of B.Sc. (Agriculture)^as prescribed^{inthesaidRulesneitherincluded} B.Sc.(HorticuLtpre), nor B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology) and B.Tech. as equivalent prescribed qualification. In the entire Rules, there is nothing either expressly stated or by necessary implication so as to include other graduate qualifications as B.Sc (Agriculture). Neither the petitioners nor the State has placed on record any eXecutive instructions of the Rule Making Authority to ever prescribe, till the date the advertisement was issued, that B.Sc. Agriculture qualification prescribed^{intheRulesasessentialeducationalqualification} for appointment to the post of R.A.E.O. included other graduate qualifications,^{muchlessqualificationspossessedby} the appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals. Therefore, the word^“w WWW”, mentioned in the advertisement only^refersto educational qualification^as prescribed^{intheRulesof1972} i.e. B.Sc. Agriculture. Vehement submission of learned counsel for the appellants^{beforethisCourtintheseappeals}

¶120

¶121

that word "azf§ FEW”, mentioned in the advertisement necessarily includes other equivalentqualifications held by the appellants^{herein,therefore,doesnotmeritacceptance.}

¶122

The claim of the writ appellants proceeds on an erroneous assumption^{andfallacioussubmissionthattheappellantsare} possessed^{ofcertainqualificationswhichareincludedwithin} “ail? the meaning of the word WWW”. Admittedly, the advertisement, inviting applications for appointment to the post^{ofR.A.E.O.wasissuedon31.10.2007andpursuantto} ' the said advertisement,^{examinationwasheldon23.12.2007.} It is apparent^fromthe pleadings^{anddocumentsplacedby} the writ petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3118/08 that while the process^{ofselectionhasbeeninitiatedlongback,} there was exchange of letters^betweenthe Directorate,^{Agricultureand} the Department^{ofAgriculture,Chhattisgarh.}

¶123

Vide letter dated 1.1.2008 {filed^{asAnnexureP—SinW.P.} (S) No.3118/08},^{theDirectorate,Agriculturesoughtinstructions} from the State Government in the matter of recognition of V various qualifications^forthe purposes^{ofeligibilityitthelight} of educational qualification of^“agh WW, mentioned in the advertisement.^{Inresponsetothesaidletter,theDepartment} of^{Agricultureissuedaletteron28.3.2008{filedasAnnexure} P-6 in W.P. (S) No.3118/08} addressed to the Agriculture University^{andtheAgricultureUniversityVideitsmemodated} 29.3.2008 {filed as Annexure P-7 in WP(S) No.3118/O8} informed^{regardingvariousdegreesunderAgriculturefaculty,}

¶124

¶125

€22

¶126

Agriculture^{Engineeringfaculty,DairyTechnologyfacultyand} Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Faculty. In the meantime, the State Govt. proceeded to issue letter dated 28.1.2008 {filed as Annexure P-Q in W.P. (S) No.3118/08}, addressed to the Director Agriculture stating that^the State Govt. grants^{recognitiontovarious} qualifications^namelyB.Sc. (Agriculture)^, B . Sc. (Horticulture)^, B . Sc. Agriculture and B.Tech. as included in prescribed (Biotechnology) qualification^{of“git W.}

¶127

Thus, for the first time, the State Government sought to include by^way of recognition^that “$‘& HEW” would include number of graduate qualifications.^Thiskind of inclusion^or expansion of “gin Flinn?” qualification was apparently^much after the process^{ofselectionhadcommencedbyissuanceof} advertisement^{dated31.10.2007.Untilthenneitherunderthe} Rules nor under any other executive instructions, qualifications^{otherthanB.Sc.} Agriculture, could be^treated for appointment to the post of as qualification prescribed R.A.E.O.^{TheGovernmentrealized} its mistake^andthe said instructions dated 28.1.2008 followed by letter dated 10.4.2008^{waseventuallycancelledvideletterdated7.5.2008} to the in the light of statutory^Rules governing^recruitment post^{ofR.A.E.C.Thus,theconclusiondrawnbylearnedSingh} Judge that the inclusion^{orfurtherextension/expansion} of any qualification after holding the examination, during to the advertisement, is not selection process, pursuant

¶128

permissible^{andthereafterWithdrawalofthesaidexplanation} is also of no relevance, does not warrant any interference in these appeals.

¶129

Learned counsel for the appellants made extensive submissions by referring to various documents placed on record by the writ appellants in their respective appeals and writ petitions to demonstrate, though unsuccessfully, that the word^“$51? Wit-W” occurring in the advertisement was always meant to include all other qualifications like B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology) and B.Tech. In order to persuade this Court to accept their submissions, ‘this attention of Court was drawn to guidelines {filed as Annexure A—2 in W.A. No.122/09 and Annexure P—37 in W.P. (S) No.2824/O8}. The guidelines have been issued by the University in order to govern the affairs relating to affiliation and recognition of Colleges and Institutions on permanent non grant basis. In the context of the said subject^relatingto grant of affiliation in the definition Clause 2 (2), word the “Agriculture” has been given a wide meaning.,I-Iowever, same could not be imported for the purposes of including graduate qualifications of B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. (Agriculture^{Biotechnology)andB.Tech.} as B.Sc. Agriculture qualification as prescribed^under the Rules of 1972. Letter dated 29.3.2008 {filed as Annexure A—7 in W.A. No.122/O9 and Annexure P~31 in W.P. (S)^{No.2428/08}only} prescribe^as to different degrees in various faculties which are being

‘—

:—

<3);

awarded by the University. In the Agriculture faculty, three different degree courses have been mentioned, namely B.Sc. (Agriculture), B.Sc. (Horticulture), and B.Sc.(Agriculture Biotechnology This by itself is sufficient to demonstrate that there is clear distinction between three different degrees.

¶134

Learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Noi82/O9 {arising out of WP. (S) No.4568/08}, referring to Academic Regulations for bachelor degree programme leading to award of B.Sc. (Agriculture/Horticulture/Biotechnology), B.Tech. (D.T.), B.Tech. (Agriculture^{Engineering)andB.V.Sc.&A.H.} programmes, particularly referring to Clauses 2.22, 3.05 85 7.01 of the Regulations contended that word “wch W was always meant to include graduate degrees not only in^B.Sc. (Agriculture),^butalsoB.Sc. (Horticulture),^B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology), B.Tech. (Dairy Technology) , B.Tech (Agriculture^Engineering) etc. The said contention on a bare reading of the said Regulations is liable to be^{rejected.Inthe} entire Academic Regulations, a clear distinction has been made by prescribing three different COurses^{dependingupon} the subj ect i.e. B. Sc. (Agriculture /^Horticulture / Biotechnology) or B.Tech. (D.T.) or B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering). When under the Academic Regulations, clear i distinction has been mentioned,^{itisdifficultforthisCourtto} accept farfetched^{submissionthatAgriculture} graduate^must necessarily include graduates^{ofdifferentdiscipline,Viewedin}

¶135

7 ’-v—..\ /

¶136

(}95

¶137

the light of statutory prescription of educational qualification prescribed^{inSchedule—IIIoftheRulesof1972.}

¶138

The State Government in its return {filed in W.P. (S) No. 2824/08 and in W.P. (S) No. 4568/08} has clearly averred that B.Sc. (Agriculture) is a different degree than B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology), B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering), B.Tech. (Dairy Technologi) and B.V.Sc. 8t, A.H. and that they are not at par with B.Sc. Agriculture. This would be clear from specific averments made in para-11 of the return of the State Govt. filed in W.P. (S) No.4568/O8, which is reproduced hereunder: “It ..... is respectfully submitted that the educational qualification has been fixed as B.Sc. Agriculture for the reason that the incumbent candidates would be well—versed with the knOWledge and expertise about soil, crop, seeds, insecticide, fertilizers, the yield of crops etc. which holds the close proximity and nexus with the qualification of^“B.Sc. Agriculture”. Needless to say that the B.Sc. in other faculty namely Biotechnology, Agriculture Engineering, B.Sc. Horticulture, can never be put at par with B.Sc. Agriculture”.

¶139

. Yet another submission of learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No.8‘2/ lO that in View of the definition of the word “Agriculture” as defined under Section 2 (i)^{oftheActof1987,} the qualification “agfk W, is very wide so as to include

¶140

67$

¶141

limited to qualification various qualifications^andcannotbe B.Sc. (Agriculture), deserves to be rejected in the light of specific provisions^{withregardtoprescriptionofeducational} qualification^{forappointmenttothepostofR.A.E.O.} (V.L.W.) in Schedule III of the Rules of 1972, wherein the only qualification^{mentionedis"B.Sc.Agriculture”.}

¶142

The entire^{basisofthesubmissionsinalltheappealsisthat} in View^{ofequivalenceandrecognitiongrantedbythe} State Govt. Vide^{letterdated28.1.2008,thosewhoarepossessedof} degrees other than^B.Sc. Agriculture were also qualified for on a being appointed. Such a submission proceeds presupposition^{thateventhoughtheRulesof1972prescribed} in View^of B.Sc. Agriculture^{astheeducationalqualification,} the subsequent act of equivalence^drawnbythe Govt, the Thus, the appellants^do admit appellants^became qualified. much after the process of inclusion of other qualification, selection^{hadbegunandtherefore,suchcontentiondeserves} rejection in View of the settled principle enunciated^by the Supreme^{Courtinthecatenaofdecisionandreferredtoby} learned^{SinghJudgethatchangingtherulesofgameafterthe} game^{wasplayedisimpermissible.Mereinclusionofnamesin} the select list does not by itself gives any legal right of appointment to the selectees is equally well settled. This Single^Judgein aspect^{hasalsobeenconsideredbylearned} the light^of principle^{laiddownbytheSupremeCourtinthe}

¶143

¶144

¶145

case of Director SCTI for Medical Science 85 Technology 8t. another (supra).

¶146

In support of the contentions, reliance placed by the appellants on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of My C. Gupta (supra) is misplaced. The controversy in that case centered round the connotation of the expression “medicine”. and the Court was examining whether it includes Cardiology or Whether CardiolOgy is a separate branch. Amongst other relevant aspects of the said case, the Court took into consideration the entire scheme and that to be qualified for the specialist branch of Cardiolog, minimum academic qualification is M.D. Medicine. The factual scenario, relevant rules, scheme of various teaching courses and required experience for the post of Professor in that case was taken into consideration. The factual background, requirement of educational qualifications in the rules in the present case, place entirely different picture altogether and therefore, the' aforesaid decision does not in any manner support the contention of learned counsel for the appellants.

¶147

Reliance placed in other decision in the case of N. Suresh Nathan (supra), also does not help the appellants. In the said decision, the Supreme Court preferred construction of the rules relating to qualifications which was in consonance with a long standing practice prevailing in the concerned department. In the present case, the recruitment rules clearly

¶148

prescribed B.S‘C. Agriculture as the qualification and there being no material placed on record by the appellants that there has been a long standing practice prevalent in the department to treat B.Sc. Agriculture as one including B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc, (Agriculture Biotechnolog), or other graduate degrees awarded by the Agriculture University, reliance on the said decision is equally misconceived.

¶149

In the ultimate analysis of various submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by learned Singh Judge so as warrant interference in these infra—Court appeals. All the appeals are consequently dismissed.

¶150

27. There shall be no orders as to cost(s).

¶151

Sd/— la f’ Sdl-
SUN'IL KUMAR SINHA Manindra Mohan Shrivasta‘fa 1‘
Judge l Judge

¶152

l"mvcen

Ashish Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachha Lal and Another Vs Chandru Nayak and Others

Kulwantin Bai and Others Vs Santosh Kumar and Others

Rameshwari Bai and Others Vs Lalan Singh and Others

Ambirsh Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Archana Rout Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kajal Sharma Vs Santosh