CAV Judgement

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

1. These two Letters Patent Appeals were heard together as the question involved in both the appeals was similar.

2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 is at the instance of Gujarat Public Service Commission, [GPSC hereafter], and is directed against judgment dated 3rd October 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7904 of 2000 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ-petition by setting aside the communication dated 17th February 1998 issued by the appellant by which the candidature of the writ-petitioner for being considered for appointment to the cadre of Gujarat Education Services Class-II (Administrative Branch) was refused, with a direction upon the appellant GPSC to call for interview for being considered for appointment to the above cadre pursuant to advertisement dated 3^rd October 1995 published in newspaper on 1st November 1995.

2.2 The other appeal being LPA No. 624 of 2013 is also at the instance of GPSC and is directed against judgment dated 3rd October 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7903 of 2000 passing similar directions.

3. There is no dispute that both the writ-petitioners were the applicants for the post in question for which the following qualification was prescribed for the candidates in Rule 3 of the recruitment rules known as Gujarat Educational Service Class-II (Administrative Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1969 [the Rules hereafter]:-

œ3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in Rule 2, a candidate must:-

(a). be not more than 30 years of age,

(b). have a Bachelors degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law of statutory Indian or foreign University;

(c). have passed B.T./B.Ed. or an equivalent Degree or Diploma of a recognised University

(d). ... ... ...

[e]. ... ... ...

(Emphasis supplied by us).

3.1 There is no dispute that Haresh K Thakore, the petitioner of SCA No. 7903 of 2000, was possessing educational qualification of Bachelor of Rural Studies from Sanosara (Saurashtra University) and Diploma in Basic Education from Gujarat State Examination Board Ahmedabad, but he was not holding a Bachelors degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law of statutory Indian or foreign University. Similarly, Dhanjibhai Savjibhai Maru, the petitioner of SCA No. 7904 of 2000 was possessing the following educational qualification:

1. Bachelor of Rural Studies from Sanosara (Saurashtra University).

2. Diploma in Basic Education from the Gujarat State Examination Board, Ahmedabad.

3. Master of Education from Bhavnagar University

4. M.A. from Gujarat Vidyapith

4. In both the matters, the contention of the writ-petitioners was that Bachelor of Rural Studies [B.R.S.] is equivalent to a Bachelors degree in Arts and, therefore, the petitioners have the eligible qualification. In the case of Dhanjibhai Savjibhai Maru, his further case was that he being a holder of M.A. Degree from Gujarat Vidyapith, he possesses higher qualification than what was prescribed, and, therefore, he is eligible.

5. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination in these Letters Patent Appeals is whether a candidate possessing qualification of Bachelor of Rural Studies [B.R.S.] is eligible for the post concerned for which the qualification prescribed is a Bachelors degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law of a statutory Indian or foreign University.

6. If we consider Rule 3 of the Rules quoted above, it would appear that in sub-rule (b), the requisite qualification is a Bachelors degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law of statutory Indian or foreign University whereas in sub-rule (c), the qualification prescribed is B.T./B.Ed. or an equivalent Degree or Diploma of a recognised University.

7. It appears that the word equivalent is not mentioned in subrule (b), and, therefore, the requirement of the aforesaid provision is that a candidate must have a Bachelors degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law of a statutory Indian or foreign University, and thus, there is no scope of having any equivalent degree. We do not, for a moment, dispute that B.R.S. degree may be equivalent to a Bachelors degree in Arts, but that is for a limited purpose as prescribed in the notification or circular indicated therein. When the requirement of law in sub-rule (b) is that a candidate must have actual degree, and not an equivalent degree as prescribed in sub-rule (c), he cannot claim that by getting an equivalent degree, he should be held to be holding eligible qualification under sub-rule (b).

8. We have already pointed that the requirement of sub-rule (c) is B.T./B.Ed. or an equivalent Degree or Diploma of a recognized University but for sub-rule (b), equivalent degree is not the requirement.

9. So far as the case of Dhanjibhai Savjibhai Maru is concerned, though he has obtained a Master of Arts Degree, the same is not from a statutory Indian or foreign University but is given by Gujarat Vidyapith, which is a recognized College under the University Grants Commission. Therefore, the said M.A. Degree cannot be taken into consideration, the same not being a degree conferred by a statutory Indian or foreign university but by a college recognized by the University Grant Commission. The position would have been different if the said petitioner had M.A. Degree given by any statutory Indian or foreign University.

10. We, therefore, find that none of the writ-petitioner had the requisite qualification in terms of rule 3(b) of the Rules quoted above.

11. Although Mr. Pujara tried to convince us that Gujarat Vidyapith is a œdeemed university? and thus, is a recognized university, we are not impressed by this submission in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS HARI PRAKASH reported in AIR 2001 SC 3303 where the question before the Supreme Court was whether the All India Institute of Medical Science is œa university established by law?. In that context, the Supreme Court made the following observations:

œWe may in this context notice the provisions of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Act']. Section 22 of the UGC Act provides that the right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised by three categories of institutions, namely, (1) a University established or incorporated by a Central or a State Act; (2) an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act; and (3) an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

6.1. The fact that there are three kinds of authorities empowered to grant degrees or diplomas is too well known in educational field and is legislatively taken note of as aforesaid. Thus it is clear that there are various institutions in India other than Universities which are empowered to confer or grant degrees and diplomas and AIIMS is one such institution. Therefore, it cannot be said that mere fact of being empowered under the AIIMS Act to confer degrees or diplomas, would convert it into a University established by law.

7. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. When the words used are not ambiguous, literal meaning has to be applied, which is the golden rule of interpretation.

8. To interpret the meaning of the expression 'University' the High Court proceeded to examine various dictionaries. That exercise could not have been undertaken by the High Court in view of the fact that the expression used in Section 3(d) of the Act is 'a University established by law'. The expression used is not just a 'University' but 'University established by law' and the expression 'University' cannot be divorced from the following words 'established by law'. Entire expression 'University established by law' constitutes one concept and is well known in law as indicated in Section 22 of the UGC Act. Hence, construction of the expression used in the Act with reference to dictionaries is not called for. Such a course will result in either omission of words in the Act such as 'established by law' or to add different words which is not permissible in the language of the Act.?

[Emphasis supplied by us]

11.1 In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, we do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Pujara that Gujarat Vidyapith being recognized by the University Grant Commission, it should be treated to be a statutory university within the meaning of sub-rule (b) of Rule 3.

12. Mr. Pujara also relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of BUDHABHAI NARANBHAI MAKWANA VS GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH (Special Civil Application no. 12987 of 1994) disposed of on June 28, 1990, where it was held that Gujarat Vidhyapith is a university within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 when the said Section 2(f) specifically defined university as a university constituted under the relevant University Act and includes any institution of higher education in the State other than a university declared under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956 to be deemed university for the purpose of the said Act. In the case before us, Rule 3(b) does include degree granted by similar deemed university but restricted to the degree granted by a Statutory Indian or foreign university. Therefore, the said decision cannot be of any help to Mr. Pujaras client.

13. Thus, the learned Single Judge erred in law in considering the writ-petitioners as the candidates having the requisite qualification by relying upon a Government Resolution where the State Government considered B.R.S. Degree equivalent to B.A. Degree for a limited purpose. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the said Government Resolution, for a restricted purpose, recognized such degree as an equivalent degree, but for that reason, the requirement of a statutory provision that a candidate must be a holder of a Bachelors degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law of statutory Indian or foreign University cannot be dispensed with.

14. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge in both the writ-petitions, and hold that the writpetitioners in both the writ-petitions do not have requisite qualifications in terms of Rule 3(b) of the Rules. The appeals are, thus, allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.

15. In view of the above order passed in the main appeals, the connected Civil Applications have become infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly.