AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a. Quashment of Notice No. PSC/DR/AP-Water Management/H.E/2017 dated 03-08-2021 for Short listing/Rejection of the candidature for the post of Assistant Professor, Water Management in Higher Education Department issued by respondent no.2.
b. Quashment of Interview notice dated 27-08-2021 issued by respondent no.2.
c. Quashing of order no. 1384-GAD of 2018 dated 12-09- 2018 issued by respondent no.3 by virtue of which equivalence committee was constituted to ascertain the quantum of equivalence of various degrees including Masters Degree in Water Management acquired by the candidates with regard to the minimum required qualification and placing on record the same before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
d. Directing to the respondents to seek the expert opinion from experts from IIT, Department of Jal Shakti of J&K Government or Central Ground Water Board experts dealing with the water management before proceeding with the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in Higher Education Department in water management advertised vide notification no. 10-PSC (DR-P) of 2017 dated 27-10-2017 in case it is felt by this honble Tribunal in the interest of justice.
The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he possesses a Bachelor of Technology degree in Agricultural Engineering from SKUAST and thereafter obtained a Master of Technology (M.Tech.) degree in Hydrology from IIT Roorkee in the year 2017. He also qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) in Land and Water Management Engineering in the year 2017.
The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC), vide Advertisement Notification No. 10-PSC (DR-P) of 2017 dated 27.10.2017, invited applications for various posts of Assistant Professor in the Higher Education Department, including 10 posts of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Water Management. Out of these 10 posts, five were earmarked for Open Merit, two for RBA and one each for SC, ST and SLC/ALC categories. The applicant, claiming to possess the requisite qualification, submitted his candidature under the RBA category.
During scrutiny of the applications, respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 01.07.2019 pointing out deficiencies/clarifications in respect of certain candidates. Insofar as the applicant was concerned, it was recorded that he possessed an M.Tech. degree in Hydrology (Surface Water) and that his eligibility was subject to clarification from the Higher Education Department.
The applicant states that, in the meantime, the General Administration Department, vide Order No. 1384-GAD of 2018 dated 12.09.2018, had constituted an Equivalence Committee for examining the equivalence of various degrees with the qualifications prescribed for different posts. Pursuant thereto, the Higher Education Department communicated the decision/minutes of the Equivalence Committee vide endorsement dated 13.10.2020. According to the applicant, the Committee did not include any expert specifically belonging to the field of Water Management/Hydrology. He further questions the assessment made by the Committee regarding the equivalence of degrees in Hydrology with the prescribed qualification of Master’s Degree in Water Management.
The applicant contends that a substantial part of the curriculum of M.Tech. Hydrology undertaken by him at IIT Roorkee relates to Water Resource Management, including irrigation, watershed development, river engineering, hydropower projects, fluid mechanics and remote sensing for water resource systems. According to him, his qualification in Hydrology, coupled with NET in Land and Water Management Engineering, is directly relevant to the discipline of Water Management. He has also relied upon a certificate stated to have been issued by the Head of the Department of Hydrology, IIT Roorkee, as well as a comparative assessment of the syllabi, in support of his contention regarding equivalence.
Respondent No. 2 thereafter issued a notice in August, 2021 declaring certain candidates ineligible for the post of Assistant Professor, Water Management. The applicant’s name figured in the said list with the reason that he did not possess the requisite qualification. The candidates were, however, permitted to submit representations along with supporting documentary material within the stipulated period. The applicant claims to have submitted his representation along with the relevant documents.
Subsequently, vide notice dated 03.09.2021, respondent No. 2 communicated the decision taken upon the representations. The applicant’s representation was rejected on the basis of the decision of the Equivalence Committee furnished by the Higher Education Department, according to which the qualification possessed by him was not equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the post. The applicant claims that he again approached the appellate authority within the stipulated period, but no favourable decision was communicated to him.
In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 issued the interview notice dated 27.08.2021 for conducting interviews for the shortlisted candidates, with the interview for the discipline of Water Management scheduled for 17.09.2021. Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature and the continuation of the selection process, the applicant approached this Tribunal.
The principal grievance of the applicant is that his M.Tech. degree in Hydrology from IIT Roorkee ought to have been treated as a qualification relevant/equivalent to Water Management. He has questioned the constitution as well as the decision of the Equivalence Committee primarily on the ground that it did not comprise experts specifically from the field of Water Management/Hydrology. He further contends that the Committee did not properly examine the actual nomenclature and syllabus of his M.Tech. degree. On these grounds, he seeks, inter alia, quashing of the rejection of his candidature and the consequential interview notice, besides reconsideration of the issue of equivalence through appropriate subject experts.
The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
The respondents have opposed the Original Application and have raised a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability. It is contended that no fundamental, statutory or legal right of the applicant has been infringed and, therefore, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
The stand of the respondent-Commission is that the Higher Education Department had referred 10 posts of Assistant Professor, Water Management, for selection, which were thereafter advertised vide Notification No. 10-PSC (DR-P) of 2017 dated 27.10.2017. In response thereto, 196 applications were received.
The respondents have further stated that under the applicable Education (Gazetted) College Service Recruitment Rules, 2008, as amended, a candidate was required to possess a good academic record with the prescribed percentage of marks at the Master’s Degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University, besides satisfying the prescribed NET/SET/SLET requirement, subject to the exemptions provided under the Rules.
According to the respondents, during scrutiny of the applications it was noticed that there was no clarity regarding the equivalence of various degrees possessed by the candidates with the minimum qualification prescribed for the post. The matter was, therefore, referred to the Higher Education Department, being the concerned Administrative Department, for clarification regarding equivalence.
The Higher Education Department thereafter furnished the minutes/decision of the Equivalence Committee vide endorsement dated 13.10.2020. As per the said decision, the Master’s degree/M.Tech. qualification in Hydrology and Surface Water was not found equivalent to the prescribed qualification of Master’s Degree in Water Management. Since the applicant possessed an M.Tech. degree in Hydrology and had applied under the RBA category, his candidature was accordingly treated as ineligible on the basis of the decision of the Equivalence Committee.
The respondent-Commission has specifically pleaded that determination and prescription of the requisite educational qualification, including the question of equivalence of qualifications, falls within the domain of the concerned Administrative Department under the applicable service rules. The Commission itself has no independent role in determining such equivalence and acted upon the decision furnished to it by the Higher Education Department. The rejection of the applicant’s candidature, according to the Commission, was thus a consequence of the decision of the competent Equivalence Committee and not an independent determination made by the Commission.
The respondents have further stated that the selections pursuant to Advertisement Notification dated 27.10.2017 were conducted on the basis of the decision of the Equivalence Committee and that the applicant, having been found not to possess a qualification considered equivalent to the prescribed Master’s Degree in Water Management, cannot claim a right to participate in the selection merely on the basis of his own assertion regarding equivalence.
An additional objection has been raised that the applicant had earlier instituted O.A. No. 1234/2021, titled Aamir Ishaq Shah v. UT of J&K & Ors., stated to be arising out of the same cause of action and pending before the Tribunal. On this basis, the respondents have also questioned the maintainability of the present proceedings on the principle of res sub judice.
On the aforesaid grounds, the respondents maintain that the candidature of the applicant was rejected in accordance with the determination made by the competent authority and have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
The controversy involved in the present Original Application lies in a narrow compass. The applicant applied for the post of Assistant Professor, Water Management, pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 10-PSC (DR-P) of 2017 dated 27.10.2017. The applicant possesses an M.Tech. degree in Hydrology from IIT Roorkee and claims that the same is equivalent/relevant to the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Professor, Water Management. His candidature was, however, rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification.
The record reveals that during scrutiny of the applications, there was lack of clarity regarding equivalence of various degrees possessed by the candidates with the qualifications prescribed for the post. The matter was accordingly referred to the Higher Education Department. The Equivalence Committee constituted for the purpose examined the issue and, as communicated vide endorsement dated 13.10.2020, did not find the qualification of M.Tech. in Hydrology/Surface Water equivalent to the prescribed qualification of Master’s Degree in Water Management. The Public Service Commission thereafter acted upon the said determination while considering the candidature of the applicant.
The principal contention of the applicant is that the subjects studied by him during his M.Tech. in Hydrology substantially overlap with the discipline of Water Management and that his qualification should, therefore, be treated as equivalent. He has also relied upon certificates/opinions regarding similarity of the courses. However, once the question of equivalence has been examined by the competent Equivalence Committee and the qualification possessed by the applicant has specifically been held not to be equivalent to the prescribed qualification, it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to substitute its own assessment of academic equivalence for that of the competent authority.
It is also pertinent that prescription of educational qualifications and determination of equivalence thereof fall primarily within the domain of the competent academic/administrative authorities. The Public Service Commission cannot be faulted for acting upon the determination furnished by the Higher Education Department and the Equivalence Committee. The applicant cannot claim eligibility merely on the basis that, according to him, the syllabus of his degree substantially corresponds with the syllabus of Water Management.
The contention regarding the constitution of the Equivalence Committee also does not, by itself, furnish sufficient ground to disregard its determination. Nothing has been placed on record to establish that the decision of the competent authority was actuated by mala fides or was otherwise so arbitrary as to warrant interference by this Tribunal. The mere fact that the applicant possesses a qualification which may have certain subjects common with Water Management cannot confer upon him a right to have such qualification judicially declared equivalent to the qualification specifically prescribed for recruitment.
In a recruitment process, a candidate must possess the qualification prescribed under the applicable rules/advertisement. Where the competent authority, upon examination, has held that the qualification possessed by a candidate is not equivalent to the prescribed qualification, the Tribunal cannot enlarge the eligibility criteria by treating another degree as equivalent merely on the basis of similarity in course contents.
In view of the above, we find no illegality or arbitrariness in the rejection of the applicant’s candidature on the ground that the degree possessed by him was not found equivalent to the prescribed qualification by the competent Equivalence Committee. No case for interference with the impugned action of the respondents is made out.
Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.