AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.
This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned final result dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-3), to the extent of non-selection of the petitioner to the post of Librarian (Category No. 03), despite the petitioner having secured more marks than the last selected candidate under the BCB category; further, for quashing the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected; and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Librarian (Category No. 03) under the BCB category, in view of his merit, along with all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears of salary and notional benefits. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to produce the original record pertaining to the petitioner, including his application form, certificates, scrutiny form, etc., before this Court.
CONTENTIONS
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Librarian under Category No. 03 in terms of Advertisement No. 12/2019 dated 20.07.2019 (Annexure P-1). Referring to the essential qualifications prescribed under the advertisement at page No. 21 of the paper-book, learned counsel submits that the petitioner's certificate (Annexure P-8) clearly indicates that he acquired the Bachelor of Library and Information Science in the year 2015 from Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal. Thereafter, he also acquired the Master of Library and Information Science from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (Annexure P-9). With regard to the experience requirement, learned counsel refers to the experience certificate (Annexure P-10), issued by the Indian Army, which indicates that the petitioner gained experience in the field of Library and Information Science while serving in the Indian Army. It is further contended that the veracity of the said certificate has been doubted by the respondent-Commission, despite the fact that the petitioner was earlier considered eligible on the basis of the very same certificate and was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list under the ESM BCB category, as is discernible from the final result dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-3). As such, once the petitioner has acquired the requisite experience while serving in the Indian Army, the respondents are bound to consider him eligible for the post in question. It is not a case where the petitioner has obtained experience from some non-descript private institute; rather, he has served in the Indian Army.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had applied under Category No. 03 for the post of Librarian, for which two years' experience as a Junior Librarian is mandatory. The experience certificate (Annexure P-10) does not indicate the duration or the specific period during which the petitioner served as a Junior Librarian. In the absence of any clarification or specific particulars regarding the nature and duration of such experience, the petitioner cannot be considered to have acquired the requisite two years' experience as a Junior Librarian. Accordingly, the petitioner was rightly held ineligible for the post in question.
OBSERVATIONS & ANALYIS
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement (supra) under Category No. 03. The essential qualifications prescribed for the said post, as discernible from Annexure P-1, read as under:-
“Essential Qualification:-
(i)Bachelor degree in Library Science from a recognized university;
(ii)Two years experience as a Junior Librarian in any reputed Institute;
(iii)Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard or higher education.”
It is not in dispute that the petitioner possesses a Bachelor of Library and Information Science degree, as is evident from Annexure P-8. However, the controversy in the present case primarily revolves around the fulfilment of the second essential qualification, i.e. two years' experience as a Junior Librarian in a reputed institute. In this regard, it would be apposite to reproduce the experience certificate furnished by the petitioner (Annexure P-10), which reads as under:-
“EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
1.This is to certify that No 15208943K Rank Nk Trade OpR Name Manoj Kumar was employed in Indian Army from 01 Jan 2004 till 31 Mar 2019. During this tenure he has achieved experience and has gained expertise in following areas:-
Sr. No Type of employment Nature of Duties Remarks (a) Computer and Information Technology Office automation (MS Word, MS Power Point, MS Excel) Software installation, database application and web design. (b) Disaster Management (CBRN Aspects) Theoretical as well as practical aspects, work with ground contingencies, use of disaster management resources. (c) Library and information Science Innovation-cum-automation of library, use info materials for org, stock verification and efficiently manage all library services. (d) Documentation Documentation of troops as system manager & supervisory activities in any Administrative Department. (e) Teaching Performed instructor duties in Category A & B establishments. 2.The Non Commissioned Officer has got adequate practical and theoretical knowledge on various aspects and has performed his bonafide military duties as a soldier with great zeal and enthusiasm in various office/ branches.
3.We can safely say that we are extremely satisfied with his duties/ abilities. He is not involved in any disciplinary/civil/ vigilance/court cases. It also gives us great pleasure to state that he will be a valuable asset to any organization, he joins and wish him luck in his future endeavors.
4.The character of the soldier is Exemplary during his service.
Sd/-
Station: c/o 56 APO Lt. Colonel/Major
Date : 04 Jan 2019” Off. Commanding Officer Unit-452”
A perusal of the aforesaid experience certificate reveals that the petitioner remained employed in the Indian Army from 01.01.2004 to 31.03.2019 and was serving in the rank of Naik, Trade OpR. The certifi-cate does mention certain duties pertaining to Library and Information Science. However, significantly, the certificate does not specify the period during which the petitioner performed such library-related duties, nor does it indicate that he was ever appointed or worked in the capacity of a Junior Librarian. The fact that the petitioner remained in service in the Indian Army for approximately fifteen years cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that he acquired two years' experience as a Junior Librarian during the said period. The overall duration of military service and the duration of experience in a particular field are two distinct aspects, which cannot be conflated. Thus, merely mentioning certain library-related duties in a general experience certificate would not, in the absence of specific particulars, establish fulfilment of the experience requirement prescribed under the advertisement (supra).
It is trite law that the Courts ordinarily do not interfere with the eligibility criteria prescribed by the recruiting authority when the terms of the advertisement are clear and are not contrary to any statutory provision or law. The employer is best suited to determine the qualifications required for a particular post, keeping in view the nature of duties attached thereto and the requirements of the establishment. Furthermore, the question of equivalence of academic qualifications falls within the domain of the employer and academic experts and ordinarily does not warrant interference in the exercise of judicial review. In this regard, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362, speaking through Justice Navin Sinha, has observed as follows:-
“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 candi-date must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eli-gibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desir-able qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equiva-lence 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)
Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.D. Firoz Mansuri & Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2026 INSC 68, speaking through Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed as follows:
“56.The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commis-sion (supra) reiterated that the essential qualifications for ap-pointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The court can-not 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. Question 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.
57.In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and suit-ability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the em-ployer. xx xx xx
59.Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of recruit-ment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrari-ness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts cannot re-write service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the employer. The scope of judicial review in matters of public employment does not extend to questioning the State’s wisdom or policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for a public post. Qualifi-cations are prescribed keeping in view the needs and interests of an institution, an industry or an establishment, as the case may be. 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 re-garded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The assessment of the expediency, advis-ability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not war-rant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be perverse. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act ar-bitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.”
(Emphasis added)
While dealing with a similar controversy, this Court in Nipun Syal and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP-14254-2022 (O&M), decision dated 26.08.2025) has held that it cannot act as a domain expert and render a finding with respect to equivalence of the prescribed academic qualifications with others, observed as under:-
“12.Admittedly, the petitioners do not possess a Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship, however, they do pos-sess degree/diploma in Civil Engineering. It is the case of the pe-titioners that they are entitled to apply to the post of Building In-spector (Technical) as they have studied architecture as a subject during their respective courses and have acquired the requisite knowledge of the subject. It is further stated that they cannot be left out of the recruitment process in view of the Rules of 2015. The entire thrust of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the diploma/degree in Civil Engineering, which includes the subject of architecture, is equivalent to the Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship, and as such the peti-tioners ought to be allowed to be considered for recruitment to the post of Building Inspector (Technical).
13.It is no longer res integra that this Court, while ex-ercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as a domain expert and render a finding with respect to equivalence of the prescribed academic qualifications with others. While the petitioners claim to be competent to perform the duties of a Building Inspector (Technical) by virtue of their di-ploma/degree in Civil Engineering, Clause 4(1) of the advertise-ment (Annexure P-1) categorically calls for a Diploma in Archi-tecture/Architecture Assistantship. In order to comment on their alike nature, this Court would have to dawn the robes of a do-main expert, which is expressly proscribed by a catena of judg-ments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14.1Further still, the advertisement (supra) does not leave any room for ambiguity regarding the eligibility criterion for the post of Building Inspector (Technical). It would be erroneous on part of this Court to consider the nature and scope of the subject of Architecture in the Diploma/Degree course of Civil Engineering as the qualification prescribed under Clause 4.1 of the advertise-ment (supra) is not merely directory but is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment rendered by a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganpath Singh Gangaram Sing Rajput vs. Gulbarga University (2014) 3 SCC 676, wherein speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad, the fol-lowing was observed:
“21....As is evident from the advertisement, applica-tions were invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the post of Lecturer in MCA. The adver-tisement requires post-graduate degree in the `relevant sub-ject'. The relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean postgraduate de-gree in MCA. In our opinion, for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters' degree in the Mathematics is not the rel-evant subject. The advertisement requires Masters' degree in `relevant subject' and not `appropriate subject'. In the present case, the Board of appointment has not stated that post-graduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant sub-ject for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent to a post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that Mathe-matics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. This, in our opinion, was beyond the power of the Board of appoint-ment.
22.It shall not make any difference even if Mathe-matics is taught in the Masters' of Computer Application course. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, gravely erred in upholding the contention of Ganpat and the University that `relevant subject' would mean `such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA course'. If Math-ematics is taught in a post-graduate course in Commerce, a Masters' degree in Commerce would not be relevant for ap-pointment in Mathematics or for that matter in MCA. There may be a situation in which Masters' degree in MCA is dif-ferently christened and such a degree may be considered rel-evant but it would be too much to say that a candidate having postgraduate degree in any of the subjects taught in MCA would make the holders of a Masters' degree in those sub-jects as holder of Masters' degree in Computer Application and, therefore, eligible for appointment. The language of the advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any ambiguity and, hence, it has to be given effect to. Since the appellant Ganpat did not have a Masters' degree in Computer Application, in our opinion, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. We are aghast to see that when a candidate possessing Masters' de-gree in MCA is available, the Board of appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore, illegal and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is that the University acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpat as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside his ap-pointment. In our opinion, an unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the recommended. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer in Masters' of Computer Application.”
14.2.Further, a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devender Bhaskar and others vs. State of Haryana and others 2022 (1) SCT51, has opined that the Courts cannot expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications, nor can they decide on matters pertaining to equivalence of academic qualifications. Speaking through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was ob-served: xx xx xx
15.However, considering that these courses have dis-tinct nomenclature, there must be some difference in the nature of their respective syllabi. As such, only an expert in his/her field can truly and correctly draw equivalence between two degrees as they would possess the requisite knowledge to take the said deci-sion. Furthermore, the essential qualifications that will allow a candidate to discharge duties of a Building Inspector (Technical) would fall in the exclusive domain of the employer as they are well versed with the nature of the job. Clearly, it would be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare equivalence of Diploma in Ar-chitecture/Architecture Assistantship with Diploma/Degree in Civil Engineering, especially in absence of any Rules in this re-gard.” (Emphasis added)
Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner admittedly possesses the requisite degree in Library and Information Science. However, possession of the prescribed academic qualification, by itself, would not suffice when the advertisement (supra) independently mandates two years' experience as a Junior Librarian in a reputed insti-tute. The experience requirement is a separate and mandatory eligibility condition, which a candidate is required to fulfil in addition to the prescribed educational qualification. The petitioner seeks to rely upon his experience certificate issued by the Indian Army to establish fulfilment of the said condition. No doubt, the certificate makes a reference to certain duties relating to Library and Information Science. However, what is conspicuously absent is any specific reference to the period for which the petitioner performed such duties or any indication that he discharged duties in the capacity of a Junior Librarian. The certificate, therefore, establishes the petitioner's overall service in the Indian Army, but does not, in itself, establish the specific experience prescribed under the advertisement.
Furthermore, the essential qualification does not require general experience in the field of Library and Information Science. Additionally, it specifically requires two years' experience as a Junior Librarian in any reputed Institute. The distinction between having performed certain library-related duties during military service and having acquired the prescribed two years' experience as a Junior Librarian cannot be overlooked. The experience certificate (Annexure P-10) does not furnish the necessary particulars to establish such experience. Neither the designation under which the petitioner performed the alleged library duties nor the specific duration for which he discharged such duties finds mention therein. The mere fact that the certificate has been issued by an officer of the Indian Army, or that the petitioner has rendered long and commendable service in the Army, cannot dispense with the specific eligibility requirement stipulated in the advertisement. The question is not whether the petitioner has acquired some knowledge or experience relating to library services, but whether the material placed on record establishes that he possesses the precise experience of two years as a Junior Librarian, as mandated by the recruiting authority.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner has served in the Indian Army for a considerable period and that the experience certificate records his involvement in certain library-related activities. However, the issue before this Court is not the credibility of the Indian Army or the genuineness of the experience certificate; rather, the issue is whether the contents of the said certificate satisfy the specific experience requirement prescribed for the post in question. The certificate, when examined in its entirety, does not establish the requisite two years' experience as a Junior Librarian. This Court cannot presume the duration or nature of experience which is not borne out from the documents placed on record, nor can it dilute or substitute the essential eligibility condition prescribed by the recruiting authority. The fact that the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list under the ESM BCB category in the final result dated 18.05.2022 would also not, by itself, confer any indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when fulfilment of the mandatory eligibility condition remains unestablished. Merit and eligibility are distinct requirements, and a candidate cannot claim appointment merely on the basis of his position in the merit or waiting list without establishing that he fulfils the essential qualifications prescribed for the post.
CONCLUSION
In view of the discussion hereinabove and the settled legal position, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned action of the respondents. The petitioner has failed to establish that he possesses the mandatory two years' experience as a Junior Librarian in a reputed institute, as prescribed under the advertisement (supra). The experience certificate furnished by him, though indicative of certain library-related duties performed during his service in the Indian Army, does not establish the specific nature and duration of experience required for the post in question. Consequently, no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner ineligible for the post of Librarian (Category No. 03). Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.