AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUDGMENT : [PER: NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties at admission stage.
By this petition, petitioners challenge decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 11/01/2024, passed in Original Application No.1113/2023, thereby dismissing the original application filed by the petitioners. Direction is also sought to appoint the petitioners on the post of Dietician (Group-C) pursuant to the advertisement dated 10/05/2023.
Petitioners hold degree of B.Tech. (Food Technology) from V.N.M.K.V., Parbhani. On 10/05/2023, respondent No.1 published advertisement for filling up of various posts including 18 posts of Dietician having pay-scale of Rs.38600-122800/-. Qualification prescribed for the said post was that the candidate should possess ‘B.Sc. (Home Science) degree of a statutory University’.
Petitioners filled in the application form by mentioning their educational qualification as B.Sc. (Home Science). Thereafter, they were instructed to remain present for verification of documents. In the meantime, petitioners made various representations to respondent No.1 requesting to consider B.Tech (Food Technology) degree as equivalent to B.Sc. (Home Science). They also pointed out that there are some incumbents who are working as Dietician having qualification of B.Tech. (Food Technology) and one of them was working under respondent No.1 only. Respondent No.1 published list of eligible and ineligible candidates for the post of Dietician on 21/12/2023, wherein against the names of petitioners it was mentioned that they are ineligible as they do not hold the qualifications in the subject ‘Home Science’.
Petitioners challenged the same by filing original application before the Tribunal. Petitioners relied upon the Government Order dated 07/09/2011, whereby the Government was pleased to issue equivalence to the degrees ie. B.Sc. (Home Science), B. Tech. (Food Technology) and other degrees. According to the petitioners, reference was made to the V.N.M.K.V., Parbhani earlier, wherein the Five Members Committee appointed by the Registrar therein submitted its report that the holders of B.Tech. (Food Technology) degree are better suited and are more extensive and appropriate for the post of Dietician. Registrar of V.N.M.K.V., Parbhani by communication dated 13/10/2023 addressed to respondent No.1 clarified that B.Tech (Food Technology) degree is equivalent to that of B.Sc. (Home Science). The Tribunal, however, has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioners. Hence, this petition.
Learned advocate for petitioners assailed the impugned decision of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the respondents, thereby holding the petitioners ineligible for the post of Dietician, by submitting that the recruitment rules are framed in the year 1992 and they are not amended in tune with the changing scenario. Therefore, said rules are rendered obsolete by virtue of advancement in the field of education and science. Learned advocate for petitioners has strongly urged that not only B.Tech. (Food Technology) degree is equivalent but the same is more appropriate qualification for the post of Dietician, as per the opinion of the Experts Committee. He has relied upon the equivalence of degrees, i.e. B.Sc. (Agricultural Bio-Technology), B.Sc. (Agriculture Management), B.Sc. (Home Science), B.Tech. (Food Technology), B.Sc. (Horticulture) with B.Sc. (Agriculture) / B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering) and other degrees. He submitted that this aspect is ignored by the Tribunal.
Per contra, learned AGP has strenuously opposed the petition by relying on the communication dated 28/02/2024 issued by respondent No.2. He supported the impugned decision of the Tribunal.
Heard learned advocate for petitioners and learned AGP for respondents – State at length. Perused the record and citations relied upon by learned advocate for petitioners.
Record reveals that the Commissioners / Directors of Health Services sought guidance of respondent No.2 that for the post of Dietician as per the service rules B.Sc. (Home Science) is the essential qualification. However, during the counseling / scrutiny it was found that the candidates whose names appear in the select list possess B.Tech. (Food Science and Technology) degree. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krushi Vidyapeeth has stated that B.Tech. (Food Science and Technology) degree is equivalent to B.Sc. (Home Science) degree. Similarly some of the candidates have produced certificate to the effect that B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree is equivalent to B.Tech. (Food Science and Technology) degree and these candidates have requested to hold them eligible for the post of Dietician.
Respondent No.2 has responded to the same stating that for the post of Dietician, Assistant Dietician, Health Advisor, Health Teacher and Chief Production Officer curriculum of B.Sc. (Home Science) is proper. In the said course, education is given as to what type of diet should be given to the patients as per their ailment. However, in the curriculum of B.Tech. (Food Science and Technology) education about food processing, food preserving, food distribution, bakery and restaurant is given. The post of Dietician in Health Department is completely related to the treatment given to the patients, therefore, only B.Sc. (Home Science) degree holders should be held eligible for the said post.
It is a trite law that it is for the employer to decide the essential qualification for an appointment to a post.
In Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Others, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362, it is held that
“9.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 on a 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.”
In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404, it is held that,
“The judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the 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.”
“27.While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, [(2010) 15 SCC 596] must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post.”
In Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 610, the Apex Court has held that,
“Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published.”
In view of the above ratio, we reject the argument of petitioners in respect of equivalence of B.Sc. (Home Science) degree and B.Tech. (Food Technology) degree.
Indisputably, the criteria prescribed for the post of Dietician vide advertisement dated 10/05/2023 is degree in B.Sc. (Home Science). Admittedly, petitioners do not possess the said degree. Taking into consideration the fact that appointment of Dietician is for serving patients, the State is justified in prescribing such qualification. In view of the difference in curriculums of B.Sc. (Home Science) degree and B.Tech. (Food Technology) degree, and as the purpose of appointing Dietician is for prescribing diet to the patients, the claim of petitioners that his degree is equivalent to B.Sc. (Home Science) and he is eligible to be considered for the post of Dietician is misconceived and the same is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
Next argument of the petitioners that since the recruitment rules for the said post are framed way back in the year 1992 and they are rendered obsolete by virtue of drastic change in the education system and the advancement of science, so also, changing horizons in the field of education and science, is also devoid of merit.
Learned AGP has placed on record copy of the amended Government Resolution dated 05/05/2026, wherein guidelines for improvement and streamlining of the recruitment process are given. The relevant amended rules are at Annexure-52, wherein for the post of Dietician qualification of ‘B.Sc. (Home Science) from statutory university’ is prescribed.
Indisputably, the advertisement prescribes qualification of B.Sc. (Home Science) for the post of Dietician and the petitioners do not possess that qualification. Though the petitioners were ineligible to apply for the said post, they have applied by mentioning incorrect qualification that they possess B.Sc. (Home Science) degree. The petitioners have, therefore, misled the respondent authority in respect of their basic eligibility criteria. Since the petitioners have played fraud on the system, on this ground alone they are not entitled to the discretionary relief and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
Learned AGP is right in contending that the petitioners did not challenge the advertisement dated 10/05/2023 and eligibility criterial of B.Sc. (Home Science) for the post of Dietician. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the challenge raised by the petitioner.
The Tribunal is justified in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioners by giving elaborate reasons. There is no illegality or perversity committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the said original application. The Tribunal has not committed jurisdictional error or error of law while dismissing the original application filed by the petitioners. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.