AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
The Staff Selection Commission invited applications for various posts in different departments including Statistical Investigator Grade-II, which is a Group-B post, in the Office of Registrar General of India. Clause 8.3.1 of the notification prescribed the qualification as 'Bachelor's Degree in any subject with Statistics as one of the subjects from a recognised University or institute. The candidates must have studied Statistics as a subject in all the three years or all the six semesters of the graduation course'. The applicant acquired Degree in Mathematics from the University of Calicut with complementary courses, Statistics and Physics. Besides the above, she also possesses Post Graduation in Statistics from the very same University.
With these qualifications at hand, she applied to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II.
The employment notice postulated three tier selection. She underwent the selection process and came out successful. However, when called for document verification, despite the fact that she possesses higher qualification, her candidature was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, she has approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
“1)Declare that the rejection of the candidature of the applicant to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II is arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by total non-application of mind;
ii) Direct the respondents to permit the applicant to participate in the remaining selection process for appointment to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II based on her performance in the written test and include the applicant at the appropriate place in the select list based on the marks secured by her and grant appointment to her in terms of her ranking in the select list;”
According to the applicant, she is a Graduate in Mathematics with Statistics as complementary subject. She also possesses MSc Statistics, which is a higher qualification. In spite of the above, rejecting her candidature is illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by total non-application of mind.
The respondents filed a reply statement rejecting the contentions of the applicant. The Regional Director of the Staff Selection Commission filed reply stating that from her own statement it is clear that she did not study Statistics as a subject in all the three years or all the six semesters in the graduation course. She had studied Statistics only in four semesters as a complementary subject. According to them, 'Statistical Investigator Grade-II is a graduate level examination and higher qualification is not factored into as educational qualification for the post'. Referring to Annexure-R1(A) communication it is submitted that similar claim of one Mr.Gokul Krishnan was rejected by the Registrar General of India.
Further, it is submitted that the the Staff Selection Commission is merely the agency entrusted with the selection of candidates. It publishes advertisements/recruitment notices of different examinations along with vacancies as reported by various intending Departments/Ministries of Central Government. Essential educational qualification is prescribed in the advertisements of the recruitment notices as per the Recruitment Rules of intending Departments/Ministries for the respective posts. The Commission has no role in prescribing any essential qualification for different posts advertised by it. If any such concession is extended to any candidate, that would be discriminatory and would have a comprehensive cascading effect leading to multiple litigations all over the country. The Commission has to apply the Rules uniformly. Even though she possesses higher qualification, M.Sc Statistics, she is still ineligible as per the notice of examination. She does not possess essential educational qualification for the post.
Applicant filed a rejoinder. According to her, since she possesses M.Sc in Statistics, which is the higher qualification of B.Sc Statistics, it should be deemed that she possesses requisite qualification. In this connection, she has also invited attention to clause 8.11 of Annexure-A1. According to her, Annexure-R1A is not final, in view of the higher qualification possessed by her, her candidature is liable to be considered. She has also stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Kerala had declared that acquisition of higher qualification pre-supposes acquisition of lower qualification which covers the issue raised in the case.
To this, the respondents filed an additional reply reiterating the contentions in the earlier reply. According to them, Recruitment Rules do not prescribe any higher qualification. M.Sc in Statistics is not equivalent to B.Sc Degree. Referring to clause 8.11, it is stated that the applicant has no case that she possesses such an equivalent certificate equating M.Sc in Statistics and B.Sc in Statistics. Moreover, referring to the decision in Jyoti K.K. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others [(2010) 15 SCC 596], which was rendered in the backdrop of Rule 10(a)(ii) of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, it is submitted that the Rule stipulates that possession of a higher qualification presupposes acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post. Here, the applicant has not pointed out any such provision in the RR applicable to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II.
We heard Adv.Ms. Aiswarya Satheesan on behalf of Sri.Brijesh Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant and Adv.Ms.Gouri Balagopal on behalf of Sri.M.N.Manmadan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.
Relying on the decisions in Puneet Sharma and others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and another [AIR 2021 SC 2221], Kerala Public Service Commission v. Krishnaprasad P.S.[2025 (6) KHC 189] and Jyoti K.K. quoted supra, it was submitted that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the candidature of the applicant merely for the reason that she possesses higher qualification. According to the learned counsel, the applicant joined for M.Sc Statistics course after completing B.Sc Mathematics since she had studied Statistics as a complementary paper in the graduate course. Here, possession of higher qualification has become a disadvantage for her. She could join for M.Sc Statistics because she studied Statistics atleast as a complementary subject. What is important is whether she can discharge the functions of a Statistical Investigator.
On the other hand, Ms.Gouri has submitted that the applicant did not study Statistics for the entire six semesters during her graduate studies. Acquisition of a higher qualification cannot be reckoned for the present purpose. In Jyoti, quoted supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the decision since Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules enables the candidate with higher qualification to be considered for the post. Here, there is no such provision. She also relied on the decisions in Md.Firoz Mansuri v. State of Bihar[2026 KHC 6055], Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v. Anit Kumar Das [(2021) 12 SCC 80] and District Collector v. Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655].
The requisite qualification prescribed in the notification has already been stated above. It is a graduate level selection and qualifications required is Degree in Statistics with subject Statistics in all the six semesters. Apparently, the applicant did not study Statistics in all the six semesters and thus she does not possess the qualification as narrated in the clause 8.3.1 of the notification.
Secondly, clause 14.2 of the employment notice reads thus:
“14.2The Commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for the eligibility and other aspects at the time of written examination and, therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally. Candidates must go through the requirements of educational qualification, experience, age, physical and medical standards etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the post(s). Copies of supporting documents will be sought at the time of Document Verification. Physical and medical standards will be ascertained by the User Departments after the declaration of result. When scrutiny is undertaken, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the Commission's decision shall be final.”
That means, the applicant was permitted to appear for the written test on the basis of the declaration given by herself to the effect that she is qualified to apply to the post. However, only when the document verification was done, it came out that she did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed as against clause 8.3.1. Then she was informed that she is not eligible to be considered further since she did not possess essential qualification prescribed in the notification.
From the O.A. itself, it is clear that the applicant has realised that she does not possess qualification as prescribed in the employment notice since she did not study Statistics in the entire six semesters of graduation. So, she has buttressed the point that she possesses higher qualification, M.Sc Statistics, which, according to her, should have been taken into consideration. But the respondents have rejected the plea and said that she cannot be appointed to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II by virtue of the higher qualifications acquired by her.
We have considered the claims of the applicant. Of course, she possesses Post Graduate Degree in Statistics. But, that will not give her any edge. It is a graduate level selection and the recruitment was done on behalf of the Registrar General of India. Such qualification was stated in the employment notice on the lines of the Recruitment Rules. The respondents are conducting recruitment on the basis of the requisitions given by the intending department, namely, office of the Registrar General of India. So, the Staff Selection Commission has no independent role in the matter of recruiting a candidate, who does not possess a qualification other than what notified in the employment notice. Such a qualification is truly in terms of the Recruitment Rules. Recruitment Rules does not postulate selection of a candidate having different qualification.
This has been made more clear from Annexure-R1(A) communication dated 13.12.2021. It is evident that Gokul Krishna, who was holding B.Sc Mathematics and M.Sc Statistics, like the applicant, had applied for the post of Statistical Investigator and insisted on his appointment to the post. The matter was referred by the 1st respondent to the Registrar General of India. The Registrar General gave the following response. Annexure-R1(A) is self explanatory, which reads thus:
“Sub: Recruitment to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade II in Registrar General of India, Conmbined Graduate Level Examination, 2019-reg. Sir, Reference is invited to SSC-KKR letter 04/09/2019-SSC(KKR)-Vol.V dated 01.09.2021 seeking clarifications regarding essential qualification for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade II in Registrar General of India (RGI). Subsequently, SSC KKR vide email dated 07.09.2021 forwarded representation of a candidate namely Sh. Gokul Grishnan, who has done B.Sc Mathematics and M.Sc Statistics and have studied Statistics as a subject in the first 2 years of his graduation. He has requested to consider his candidature for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II considering his M.Sc in Statistics and B.Sc in Mathematics with Statistics in the first 2 years.
2.Commission forwarded the above said representation of Sh. Gokul Krishnan to the O/o RGI with a request to examine the representation of the candidate and furnish comments to the Commission.
3.In response, ORGI has stated the following-
i.The post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II is a graduate level examination to be filled by SSC through Combined Graduate Level Examination-2019. As such the candidate should fulfil the essential educational qualification of graduation level.
ii.As per the notification, the candidate should have studied Statistics at Degree level in Part-I, Part-II and Part-III or in all the six semesters of three years degree course and not simply a paper in any part of the Degree or Six semesters at degree level. As Sh. Gokul Krishnan has studied statistics in two years at graduate level, he does not possess the prescribed educational qualification to be eligible for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II in ORGI.
4.In view of above, it is requested to process the representation of Sh. Gokul Krishnan and representations of other candidates, if any, similar in nature.
5.This issue with the approval of Competent Authority.”
The applicant is identically placed and therefore, the respondents cannot take a different stand in her case. This document takes the case of the respondents a long way and gives complete set back to the applicant.
Moreover, it is the settled proposition of law that relevancy and stability of qualification lies within the exclusive domain of the employer (see the decision in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v. Anitkumar, quoted supra). As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md.Firoz Mansuri v. State of Bihar,
“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 recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts cannot rewrite 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. Qualifications 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 regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The assessment of the expediency, advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not warrant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be perverse. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.”
Similarly, in the decision in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others [2019) 2 SCC 404], the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“22......The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. 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 regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.......... “
In Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others [(2019) 6 SCC 362], the Supreme Court has reiterated that essential qualifications for appointment to the post are for the employer to decide and the Court cannot lay down on the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to the desirable qualifications being at par with the eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. The 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.
The applicant has no case that M.Sc in Statistics is equivalent to B.Sc in Statistics, nor did she produce any equivalence certificate from the authorities.
The decision in Jyoti, quoted supra, relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot give any advantage to the applicant. There, Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules provides that qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the Special Rules and such those higher qualifications which pre-suppose acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. In the same decision, the Supreme Court held as follow:
“7.It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. “
That means, since there is no supporting rule enabling the Commission to reckon higher qualification, the respondents are justified in not reckoning the fact that the applicant possesses M.Sc in Statistics.
Resultantly, the Original Application fails and is dismissed. No costs.