Satish @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Present petitioners, who are possessing degrees of M.Sc. in the stream of Environment Science or Chemistry with M.Tech in Environment

Engineering and are better qualified than the criterion required for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Solid West Management), i.e.,

Bachelor’s Degree in Engineer (B.Tech) as per Advertisement dated 30.12.2015, have approached this Court for issuing appropriate writ, order

or direction to hold them equivalent to B.Tech and issuance of necessary directions to the respondents to afford them appointment on the said post

with all consequential benefits from the date similarly situated persons were given appointment. A specific prayer is also made for setting aside all the

orders and communication denying them appointment on basis of their not possessing Degree of B.Tech.

Apposite facts for disposal of the present lis are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.3 Rajasthan Municipal (Administrative &

Technical) & Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board, all the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Solid West

Management), which prescribed eligibility criterion for an aspirant as Master’s Degree in Environmental Engineering after Bachelor’s Degree

in Bio-Technology/ Chemical/ Civil/ Mining/ Environmental/ Textile Engineering from a University established by law in India or foreign qualification

recognized or equivalent thereto.  According to the petitioners, though they are not B.Tech but as they hold the Master’s Degree in

Environment Engineering they are equivalent to B.Tech in view of the fact that as per All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), a scholar

with M.Sc. Degree is eligible for getting admission in M.Tech courses and M.Sc. is treated equivalent to B.Tech, however, as a precaution they made

communication with respondent No.3 through e-mail for clarification but without any response.  The case of the petitioners is that they being well

qualified applied pursuant to the advertisement and after receiving call letters attempted online examination in which they performed well.  The

result of examination was declared on 12.09.2016 and successful candidates were selected for document verification.  The names of petitioners

No.1 to 3 appeared at Serial No.42, 25 and 18 who respectively secured marks 65.08, 79.32 & 82.37. At the time of document verification, they

were issued communication on 28.09.2016 informing them about the documents to be produced and raising objection regarding required

Bachelor’s Degree and Master’s Degree.  The petitioners in compliance thereof, submitted required documents on 05.10.2016 and also

submitted application stating that M.Sc. Degree is equivalent to B.Tech. In the merit-list, names of petitioners were shown at their respective places

with the category under which they were selected. Later on, the respondents vide order dated 20.01.2017 appointed selected candidates on the post

but the petitioners were not given appointment as such they made representation on 25.01.2017 for affording them appointment treating their M.Sc.

qualification equivalent to B.Tech but without any fruitful result.

Grievance of the petitioners is denial of appointment despite being successful and eligible to be appointed even after undergoing the entire process of

selection. As regards qualification of M.Sc. equivalent to Bachelor’s Degree in engineering, i.e. B.Tech, the stand of petitioners is that statutory

bodies like UPSC, PSU and CCI etc are making recruitment treating the qualification of M.Sc. equivalent to the qualification of B.Tech also and the

respondents after verification of documents were satisfied with the qualifications of the petitioners and while appreciating the same their names were

included in the merit list, therefore, petitioners are required to be given appointment on being found successful and meritorious.

In the reply, respondents have inter-alia pleaded that the petitioners are not having required qualification as per advertisement for the post against

which they applied and the claim of petitioners for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Solid Waste Management) denied. It is also

averred in the return that issuance of call letters to appear in the examination does not make the petitioners qualified for the post. While referring to

the merit list it is averred that the list issued was provisional and subject to verification of qualification and appointment orders are issued only in favour

of finally selected candidates.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

Indisputably, petitioners participated in the recruitment process without any objection as to their educational qualifications and eligibility for appointment

on the post of Assistant Engineer (Solid Waste Management) uptil preparation of select/merit-list by the respondents and no rules for recruitment on

the post of Assistant Engineer (Solid Waste Management) finalized.Â

A similar controversy arose before the Jaipur Bench of this Court in case of Bharat Singh Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.7349/2017, decided on 26.04.2018) and the Court while referring to the decision rendered in the case of Mahendra Kumar Saini & Ors.

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1199/2016, decided on 17.01.2017 by Jaipur Bench) and other cases allowed the writ

petition. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

“For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in the singular factual matrix of the case at hand so also in view of the materials available on record

as well as keeping in view the fact that the draft rules are yet to finalized and the petitioner is in possession of far better and higher qualifications in the

same faculty than in-service candidates who are also eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer (Solid Waste Management), under 50% quota by

promotion; the claim of the petitioner merits acceptance.

Accordingly, the writ application of the petitioner succeeds and is hereby allowed.

The State-respondents are directed to accord appointment letter to the petitioner, if he is otherwise found eligible. Consequential benefits shall be

admissible to the petitioner on notional basis.

The respondents are directed to ensure compliance of this order as expeditiously as possible; preferably within six weeks from the date a certified

copy of this order is presented.â€​

As the present petition is squarely covered by the decision in Bharat Singh Gurjar (supra), it is also allowed in terms thereof and respondents are

directed to provide appointment to the petitioners with consequential benefits admissible on notional basis as expeditiously as possible.