IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5456 of 2014 Naveen Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others ….. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner - Mr. M.K.Dey, Sr. Adv. For the State - Mr. J.C to A.A.G For the J.P.S.C - Mr. Sanjay Piprawall ----- 4/29.1.2015 In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to forthwith accept his candidature for appointment on the post of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer/District Fisheries Officer/Lecturer in terms of Advertisement No. 16/2011 and accordingly permit him to participate in the interview.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the JPSC had published Advertisement No. 16/2011 inviting applications for appointment on the posts of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer/District Fisheries Officer/Lecturer. Since the petitioner was possessing Post Graduate Degree i.e. M.Sc. (Marine Biology), which is equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology), pursuant to the said advertisement, he had made application, but his candidature was rejected on the ground that he is not possessing requisite qualification. When he came to know about rejection of his candidature, he immediately objected to the same by sending a letter dated 15.2.2010, issued by the Pondicherry University, certifying the fact that the qualification of M.Sc. (Marine Biology) is equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology).
3. It has been submitted that the date of interview was fixed on 15.10.2014, but he had not been permitted to appear in the interview due to rejection of his candidature on the ground of having no requisite qualification, whereas he is possessing equivalent qualification of M.Sc. (Zoology), as has been prescribed in the advertisement.
4. It has been further submitted that on earlier occasion, the petitioner had been permitted to participate in the interview pursuant to Advertisement No. 14/2008 having the same qualification for appointment on the post of Fisheries Extension Officer, in which he had been declared successful and had also been appointed.
5. Thus, it has been submitted that when on the basis of the same qualification, the JPSC had accepted his candidature, the action of the JPSC in rejecting his candidature for appointment on the post of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer/District Fisheries Officer/Lecturer in terms of Advertisement No. 16/2011 on the ground of having no requisite qualification, is absolutely incorrect.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner was not possessing requisite qualification of Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries), the Commission is duty bound to act in terms of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, as such the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of having no requisite qualification.
7. It has been further submitted that the JPSC is supposed to act according to the Recruitment Rules, 2004, which have been framed by the State Government, and is also duty bound to follow the terms and conditions prescribed therein. The Commission, being the recommending authority, cannot take its own decision giving relaxation in the matter of qualification.
8. Heard the parties, perused the record.
9. The question to be decided is as to whether the petitioner can be said to have possessed requisite qualification.
10. For determining this issue, it is necessary to see the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fisheries) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, issued by the Government of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 4.4.2005. As per the said Rules, required qualification for appointment on the post of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer/District Fisheries Officer/Lecturer is as follows: “B.Sc. (Zoology) along with certificate in two years diploma in Fisheries Science Course from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. Or Bachelor in Fisheries Science from any recognized University (B.F.Sc.) Or Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries) from any recognized University.”
11. The State Government had requested the JPSC for filling up the vacant posts of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer/District Fisheries Officer/Lecturer according to the Recruitment Rules, 2004.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner is having no requisite qualification, either as per the Recruitment Rules, 2004 or in terms of Advertisement No. 16/2011, rather he is possessing qualification of M.Sc. (Marine Biology), according to the petitioner, which is equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology). In support thereof, he has annexed a certificate, issued by the Pondicherry University (Annexure-2), wherein it has been certified by the Pondicherry University that M.Sc. (Marine Biology) has been considered equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology) and the same has been accepted in the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala etc.
13. So far as the contention of the petitioner that since M.Sc. (Marine Biology) is equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology), rejection of his candidature on the ground of having no requisite qualification, is absolutely incorrect and without any application of mind, the same cannot be accepted due to the following reasons:
14. It is settled proposition of law that any appointment is to be made on the basis of certain recruitment rules. The State Government had formulated the Recruitment Rules in the year 2004 prescribing definite educational qualifications, as has been indicated herein above. In the Recruitment Rules, 2004, there is no condition of equivalence of the educational qualification. The JPSC had published Advertisement No. 16/2011 inviting applications for appointment on the posts of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer/District Fisheries Officer/Lecturer on the basis of the educational qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, 2004. Admittedly, the petitioner is having no requisite qualification, as prescribed under the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fisheries) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004 or in the said advertisement. Hence, the JPSC has strictly followed the terms and conditions prescribed in the advertisement, which had been published on the basis of the Recruitment Rules, 2004. Thus, the action of the JPSC cannot be said to be without any reason and without any application of mind.
15. The petitioner has relied upon a certificate issued by the Pondicherry University in support of his contention that the qualification of M.Sc. (Marine Biology) is equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology), but from perusal of the said certificate, it is evident that equivalence of the qualification of M.Sc. (Marine Biology) to M.Sc. (Zoology) has been considered in the State of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. There is no reference of the State of Jharkhand treating the qualification of M.Sc. (Marine Biology) equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology). Hence, the said contention of the petitioner does not find support.
16. So far as the contention of the petitioner that on earlier occasion, on the basis of the same qualification, he was permitted to appear in the examination and was also appointed, in my view, the petitioner cannot get any benefit of the same due to settled proposition of law that if any thing has been done by the authority, which is not in consonance with the statutory rule, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot exercise power for giving relaxation in qualification.
17. Reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration Vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie, reported in (2011) 9 SCC645 wherein it has been held that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. At Paragraph 22, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows :
“22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules-----------.”
18. However, it is up to the State Government or the JPSC to treat any qualification equivalent to the qualification, which has been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, 2004 or in the said advertisement.
19. Since the selection is to be made against the permanent posts on the basis of statutory rules, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot pass any direction for giving relaxation in requisite qualification in absence of any rule.
20. It is well settled that a Court of law cannot act as an expert, rather it is to be decided by the Selection Board or the Committee and when the State Government has formulated a specific rule in this regard, the same cannot be deviated.
21. Since the JPSC has rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of having no requisite qualification, in my view, the same is based on cogent reasons, as discussed herein above, and needs no interference by this Court.
22. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. S.K (SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J)