AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties at admission stage.
By this petition, petitioner challenges decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 05/08/2024, passed in Original Application No.579/2021, thereby dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. He also challenges the communication dated 15/09/2021, by which the petitioner is held ineligible. Direction is also sought to appoint the petitioner on the post of Dietician (Group-C) pursuant to the advertisement dated 22/02/2019.
Petitioner holds degree of B.Tech. (Food Science and Technology) from Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani. He also holds the degree of M.Sc. (Agriculture) – Food Science and Technology. He has completed MS-CIT course. Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and possesses validity certificate to that effect. On 22/02/2019, respondent No.3 Public Health Department published an advertisement for filling up various posts including two posts of Dietician having pay-scale of Rs.9,300-34,800/- (Grade Pay-4300/-). The qualification prescribed for the said post was that the candidate should possess ‘B.Sc. (Home Science) degree of a statutory University’. One out of two posts was reserved for Scheduled Caste category.
Petitioner filled in the application form by mentioning his educational qualification as B.Sc. (Home Science). He secured second position in the order of merit in written examination conducted by respondent No.2. At the time of documents verification it was found that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement, as he does not possess degree of B.Sc. (Home Science) but possess degree of B.Tech. (Food Science and Technology). Hence, he was held ineligible for the said post.
Petitioner then relied upon the Government Resolution whereby the Government was pleased to issue equivalence to the 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, vide Government order dated 07/09/2011.
Petitioner was informed that necessary guidance would be sought from respondent No.2 about equivalence of the degrees and thereafter decision would be taken in case of petitioner. Petitioner came to know that respondent No.4 complained against selection of the petitioner contending that he does not possess requisite qualification. According to the petitioner, in the light of Government order dated 07/09/2011, it was not necessary to seek any guidance from respondent No.2 or from the Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani.
Petitioner further claims that there are instances wherein incumbents possessing same degree have been appointed as Dietician, not only in the State of Maharashtra but even under respondent No.1 Deputy Director of Health Services. Names of such incumbents are mentioned by the petitioner in paragraph No.10 of the memo of writ petition. The petitioner further contends that, without waiting for clarification from the University, respondent No.2 came to a conclusion that two degrees i.e. one mentioned in the advertisement and the one held by the petitioner are different as the curriculum of both the degrees are different. Accordingly, respondent No.1 declared petitioner as ineligible, since he did not hold the necessary educational qualification for the post of Dietician. The same was informed to the petitioner by communication dated 15/09/2021.
Being aggrieved, petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the said communication. The Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by petitioner. Hence, this petition.
Learned advocate for petitioner assailed the impugned decision of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the respondents, thereby holding the petitioner 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 petitioner has strongly urged that not only B.Tech. (Food Science and 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.3. He supported the impugned decision of the Tribunal.
Heard learned advocate for petitioner, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State, learned advocate for respondent No.4, learned advocate for respondent No.5 and learned advocate for respondent No.6 at length. Perused the record and citations relied upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
Record reveals that the Commissioners / Directors of Health Services sought guidance of respondent No.3 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.3 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 petitioner in respect of equivalence of B.Sc. (Home Science) degree and B.Tech. (Food Science and Technology) degree.
Indisputably, the criteria prescribed for the post of Dietician vide advertisement dated 22/02/2019 is degree in B.Sc. (Home Science). Admittedly, petitioner does 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 Science and Technology) degree, and as the purpose of appointing Dietician is for prescribing diet to the patients, the claim of petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner does not possess that qualification. Though the petitioner was ineligible to apply for the said post, he has applied by mentioning incorrect qualification that he possess B.Sc. (Home Science) degree. The petitioner has, therefore, misled the respondent authority in respect of his basic eligibility criteria. Since the petitioner has played fraud on the system, on this ground alone he is not entitled for equitable discretionary relief and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned AGP and learned advocates for respondents are right in contending that the petitioner did not challenge the advertisement dated 22/02/2019 and eligibility criterial of B.Sc. (Home Science) for the post of Dietician. The same is also not challenged here. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.