AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-3878-2023.
Prayer in the writ petition (CWP-3878-2023) filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned communication dated 29.10.2022 (Annexure P-16) vide which the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Automobile Engineering (Group-B) in Technical Education Department, Haryana, has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer under category BCA, pursuant to advertisement dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) and issue appointment letter to him along with all consequential benefits at par with other co-employees.
On 14.03.2023, the following order was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in pursuance of advertisement No.11/2021, the petitioner had applied for the aforesaid post in BC-A Category, and that as per the advertisement, essential qualification for the aforesaid post would read as under:
“(3)Lecturer in Automobile Engineering (i) Bachelors and Masters of Engineering or Technology degree in Automobile with First Class either in Bachelors or Masters degree from a recognized University/Institution. OR Bachelors of Engineering or Technology degree in Mechanical with Automobile Engineering as one of the subject and Masters of Engineering or Technology degree in Automobile with First Class either in Bachelors or Masters degree from a recognized University/Institution; and (ii) Hindi or Sanskrit as one of the subjects in Matric or Higher Education.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner possesses the degree of Bachelors of Technology in Mech. Engg. and the degree of Masters of Technology in Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing Technology and Automation). Learned counsel further contends that vide letter dated 23.10.2020 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, it was clarified that in case a candidate possesses either under graduate degree or post graduate degree in a particular discipline, then other degree can be possessed from other allied field, meaning thereby that the petitioner is eligible for the aforesaid post.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that candidature of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected and that the petitioner was the only candidate, who had been called for the interview in BC-A Category.
Thereafter, on 09.04.2024, learned counsel representing the respondent/Commission had informed this Court that an Expert Committee constituted by the Commission has opined that the petitioner’s M. Tech. degree is not the requisite qualification for the advertised post and has taken a short accommodation to place on record the Expert Committee’s report along with the details of the experts, who constituted the Committee.
In purported compliance, the Expert Committee Report has been produced in the Court today in a sealed cover, which has been opened and perused by this Court. The said Expert Committee Report is taken on record as ‘Mark X’ in CWP-3878-2023. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
A perusal of the Expert Committee Report clearly indicates that the petitioner possesses the master’s degree in the stream of Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing Technology and Automation). The Expert Committee has examined the degree of the petitioner and under the column ‘Expert Remark’ has opined that the petitioner is not eligible as M.Tech/M.E. in Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing Technology and Automation) is not relevant or appropriate nomenclature in Engineering/Technology to M.E./M. Tech. in Automobile as per AICTE Notification No.27/RIFD/Pay/01/2017-18 dated 28.04.2017. The said Expert Committee Report, reads as under:-
Recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Automobile Engineering in Technical Education Department Haryana.
Roll No. Name of the Candidates Essential Qualification as per Advertisement Qualification of the candidates Expert Remarks 25040 Pardeep Kumar (i) Bachelors and Masters of Engineering or Technology degree in Automobile with First Class either in Bachelors or Masters degree from a recognized University / Institution.
OR
Bachelors of
The Master's degree is in the stream of Mechanical Engineering, with Specialization in Automobile Engg. Eligible as the M.Tech/M.E. in Mechanical Engineering with specialization in Automobile Engineering is relevant/appropr iate nomenclature in Engineering /Technology to M.E./ M.Tech in Automobile as per AICTE Notification No.27 /RIFD Engineering /Pay /01 /2017-or Technology 18 dated degree in 28.04.2017. Mechanical with Automobile Engineering as one of the subject and Masters of Engineering or Technology degree in Automobile with First Class either in Bachelors or Masters degree from a recognized University/ Institution; and (ii) Hindi or Sanskrit as one of the subject in Matric or Higher Education.
2.25070 Mukesh -do- The Master's Not Eligible as Kumar degree is in the the M.Tech/M.E. stream of in Thermal Thermal Engg. Engineering is not relevant/appropr iate nomenclature in Engineering /Technology to
M.E./ M.Tech in Automobile as per AICTE Notification No.27 /RIFD /Pay/01/2017-18 dated 28.04.2017. 25080 Nishant Kumar -do- The Master's degree is in the stream of Automotive Engg. Eligible as the M.Tech/M.E. in Automotive Engineering is relevant/appropr iate nomenclature in Engineering /Technology to M.E./ M.Tech in Automobile as per AICTE Notification No.27 /RIFD /Pay/01/2017-18 dated 28.04.2017. 25029 Jahangir Khan -do- The Master's degree is in the stream of Industrial & Tribology Maintenance Engg. Not Eligible as the M.Tech/M.E. in Industrial Tribology and Maintenance Engg. is not relevant/appropr iate nomenclature in Engineering /Technology to M.E./ M.Tech in Automobile as per AICTE Notification No.27 /RIFD
/Pay/01/2017-18 dated 28.04.2017. 25007 Anil Kumar -do- The Master's degree is in the stream of Mechanical Engg. (Manufacturing Technology and Automation). Not Eligible as the M.Tech/M.E . in Mechanical Engg. (Manufacturing Technology and Automation) is not relevant/appropr iate nomenclature in Engineering /Technology to M.E./ M.Tech in Automobile as per AICTE Notification No.27 /RIFD /Pay/01/2017-18 dated 28.04.2017. 25011 Aakash Godara -do- i) B.E. and B.Tech degree in Mechanical Engg. as one of the subject. ii) The Master's degree is in the stream of Mechanical Engg. Automotive Engg. Eligible as the M.Tech/ M.E. in Mechanical Engg. Automotive Engg. is relevant/appropr iate nomenclature in Engineering Technology to M.E/ M.Tech in Automobile as per AICTE Notification No.27 /RIFD /Pay/01/2017-18 dated 28.04.2017.
It is a trite law that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the opinion rendered by an expert body on technical or academic matters, particularly where the issue pertains to the equivalence or relevance of an educational qualification prescribed for a particular post.
In the present case, the respondent/Commission constituted an Expert Committee to examine the qualifications of the candidates with reference to the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement and the applicable AICTE norms. The Expert Committee, after examining the petitioner's M.Tech. qualification in Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing Technology and Automation), has specifically opined that the said qualification is not a relevant/appropriate nomenclature in Engineering/Technology corresponding to M.E./M.Tech. in Automobile Engineering, as per AICTE Notification No.27/RIFD/Pay/01/2017-18 dated 28.04.2017. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid opinion of the Expert Committee is contrary to the applicable norms, based on irrelevant considerations or otherwise suffers from perversity warranting interference by this Court.
The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the AICTE letter dated 23.10.2020 does not advance his case. The said communication cannot, by itself, be construed as declaring the petitioner's specific M.Tech. qualification in Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing Technology and Automation) to be equivalent or relevant to M.Tech./M.E. in Automobile Engineering, particularly when the competent Expert Committee, upon examination of the qualification in the context of the advertised post, has returned a categorical opinion to the contrary. The question as to whether a particular degree or specialization answers the prescribed qualification is essentially a matter falling within the domain of the recruiting authority and the experts competent to assess such academic equivalence. The said view is consistent with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University, (2014) 3 SCC 767 and Devender Bhaskar v. State of Haryana, 2022(1) SCT 51, wherein it has been reiterated that equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical and academic matter to be determined by the competent authority/expert body and the same cannot ordinarily be assumed or declared by the writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. In the absence of any material showing that the opinion of the Expert Committee is arbitrary, perverse or contrary to the prescribed qualification, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner/Anil Kumar.
A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others (2019) 6 SCC 362, speaking through Justice Navin Sinha, has made the following observations in this regard:
“10.The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.” (emphasis added)
Further, the petitioner in CWP-16446-2023, namely, Navdeep Singh, has claimed to possess the requisite qualification of B.Tech. with Automobile Engineering as one of the subjects and M.Tech. in Thermal Engineering. However, the short reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 indicates that the petitioner failed to clear the written examination and, consequently, was ousted from the selection process. The selection process had already been completed on 11.11.2022, as discernible from Annexure P-5, whereas the present writ petition was filed on 09.02.2023.
The aforesaid stand taken by respondent No.3/Commission has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any replication. Therefore, even otherwise, since the petitioner failed to qualify the written examination, he was not entitled to proceed further in the selection process. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out in CWP-16446-2023.
In view of the foregoing discussions, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.