Smriti Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:10205

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 458 of 2021

¶6

1 - Smriti Agrawal W/o Alok S K Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 40 5th Floor E3 Block Chauhan Green Valley Near Junwani Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Director Public Education First Floor Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Cgvyapam Vyapam Bhawan, North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001

¶12

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For State/Res. No.1 & 2 : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. G.A. For Res. No. 3/VYAPAM : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

03.03.2025

¶16

The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition assailing memo dated 01.12.2020 issued by respondent No. 2 by which candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Biology) has been rejected as the petitioner was not having requisite qualification for appointment upto the date of declaration of result as M.Sc. (Life Science) cannot be held to be equivalence with M.Sc. (Biology).

¶17

The brief facts as reflected from record are that the respondent issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Gazetted

¶18

Digitally signed by ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.01 10:48:31 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

Class-II) in the School Education Department on 09.03.2019 for various subject like English, Chemistry, Commerce, Mathematic, Physics & Biology and according to the advertisement, the last date of submission of application form was 24.04.2019. The essential qualification for Lecturer (Biology) is that the candidate should have passed Post Graduate degree with Second Division in Botany/ Zoology/ Biology/Genetics/ Microbiology/Biotechnology/ Molecular Biology/ Plant Physiology and on graduate level, Geology and Botany should be one of the subjects. The petitioner has submitted her application form and cleared written examination conducted by the respondent, as such the petitioner was called for document verification and record as per the scheduled date. The petitioner appeared before the counseling committee and submitted documents which were not considered by the committee and vide impugned order dated 01.12.2020 rejected claim of the petitioner for her appointment hence, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the University which is an expert on the subject has issued a certificate on 30.12.2020 in favour of the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned as under:-

¶22

“ Certificate

¶23

This is to certify that Mrs. Smriti Agrawal D/o Shri M.L. Agrawal was the student of Department of Forestry, Wildlife, Environment and Eco-Development, Faculty of Science in academic session 1996-98. She has studied various subjects i.e. Applied Botany, Forest Genetics and Tree Improvement, Applied Forest Ecology, Environment & Conservation, Forest Protection, Soil Science and Forest Inventory and Forest statistics during her studied for Master of Science in Forestry, Wildlife, Environment and Eco-Development. All such subjects

¶24

3

¶25

are also taught in the curriculum of Master of Science degree in Life Sciences.

¶26

Therefore, it is recommended that her M.Sc. Degree and subjects taught may be considered for the post of Lecturer in Biology. ”

¶27

He would further submit that since the petitioner is having equivalence qualification, therefore, she should be considered for appointment, as such rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide memo dated 01.12.2020 is bad in law and would pray for quashing of the same and for issuing direction to the respondent to appoint her on the post of Lecture (Biology) with all consequential benefits.

¶28

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the equivalence qualification can be determined by expert body not by this Court as it is within domain of expert and there is no such equivalence clause has been provided in the advertisement. In absence of provisions for equivalence clause even the matter cannot be referred to the expert for determination of equivalence clause and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & others [(2019) 2 SCC 404] and would refer paragraph 26 to 28 of the judgment.

¶29

I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

¶30

From pleadings of the parties, the point emerged for determination of this Court is:-

¶31

“Whether this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the

¶32

4

¶33

Constitution of India, can decide equivalence which is within domain of expert.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, the Forestry, Wildlife, Environment and Eco-Development, Faculty of Science also included in curriculum of Master of Science degree in Life Sciences, therefore, the degree as possessed by the petitioner also falls within ambit of Life Sciences, as such the rejection of candidature of the petitioner, is illegal and suffers from perversity.

¶35

Learned State counsel would submit that as per the advertisement, the candidate should have possessed Master Degree in respective branch either in Biology or Botany or any other subject which enumerated in the advertisement, but none of the subjects has been cleared by the petitioner. Even the certificate issued by the University in favour of the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria of qualification prescribed in the advertisement which has been framed in pursuance of Recruitment Rules, 2019. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that the equivalence cannot be determined by this Court as it falls within the domain of expert and this Court is not expert in the field of education. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) has held as under:-

¶36

“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of

¶37

5

¶38

judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.

¶39

While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.

¶40

Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible.”

¶41

Considering the factual matrix, the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as afore-stated and also considering the fact that none of the subjects is involved which has been cleared by the petitioner is

¶42

6

¶43

available in the list available along with advertisement, as such, there is no illegality or perversity committed by the respondent in rejecting candidature of the petitioner.

¶44

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶45

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶46

Arun

Smriti Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smriti Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar Baranwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Poonam Chand Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Mustafa Khan Vs Mohammad Mustafa Ansari

M/S Kishan Traders, Kurud Vs Chairman, Jai Kishan Krishi Kendra Bhainsamundi (Magarlod)

Mrs. Sumangala Pawar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Lal Agrawal Vs Umesh Sinha