Holding

A candidate must possess the principal Honours degree in Zoology as stipulated in the advertisement; the expert committee’s report was lawful, and the Division Bench’s reliance on the ‘litmus test’ was erroneous.

Summary

The Bihar Public Service Commission advertised for the post of District Fisheries Officer requiring a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Zoology. The petitioner, Kamini, held a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with Zoology and Botany as subsidiary subjects and was initially called for interview due to a clerical error. Upon verification, the Commission cancelled her candidature, and an expert committee affirmed that only a principal subject with eight papers qualifies as an Honours degree, rendering her ineligible. The High Court Division Bench set aside the cancellation, relying on her admission to the Central Institute of Fisheries Education as a 'litmus test', but the Supreme Court held that the expert committee’s view was correct, the admission test irrelevant, and the Division Bench erred. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the Commission’s appeal, restored the Single Judge’s order, and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether a candidate with B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry and Zoology as a subsidiary subject satisfies the eligibility requirement of B.Sc. (Hons.) Zoology for the post.
Whether the expert committee’s interpretation of ‘Honours in the subject’ is legally valid and non‑arbitrary.
Whether the High Court’s reliance on the candidate’s admission to the Central Institute of Fisheries Education constitutes a proper test of eligibility.
Whether Article 14’s equality clause can be invoked to compel the Commission to treat the petitioner as eligible based on past appointments.

Subjects

Service lawEligibilityEducational qualificationB.Sc. ZoologyArticle 14Equality clauseExpert committeePublic Service CommissionDistrict Fisheries Officer

Judgment

A BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
v.
.. .
KAMIN! AND ORS.

APRIL 16, 2007

B [C.K. THAKKERANDALTAMASKABIR,JJ.]
'
Service Law-Appointment-Post ofDistrict Fisheries Officer-Requisite
eligibility qualifications, B.Sc. Zoology-Zoology should be principal/main
subject--Candidate possession B.Sc. Chemistry along with Zoology and Botany
c as subsidiary/optional subjects called/or interview due to mistake-Rejection
of candidature-Report of Expert Committee that student would be called
Graduate in a subject if he has Honours in that subject at Graduate level and
as such candidate negligible-Correctness of-Held: Report of Expert
Committee not contrary to law or arbitrary-Since the candidate did not
D possess the requisite qualification, cancellation was proper-Only because
some negligible candidates were wrongly treated as eligible, candidate
cannot insist that she must be treated eligible-Doctrine of equality-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14.
l
.,
Appellant-State Public Service Commission issued advertisement for
E appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive
Officer. The requisite educational qualification was B.Sc. Zoology with other
qualifications. First respondent, holding degree of B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry
with Zoology and Botany, Chemistry being the principal/main subject and
Zoology and Botany as subsidiary/optional subjects, applied for the post.
Though she did not possess the requisite qualifications of B.Sc. Zoology, the
F
appellant issued her Interview letter. On scrutiny of the mark-sheet, it was
found that the respondent did not have Hons. Degree in Zoology and was not
eligible for the post. When she appeared for the inten•iew, her candidature
was cancelled. Respondent made a representation. Appellant constituted an
Expert Committee which submitted its Report that a student will be considered
G a Graduate in the subject only if he/she has obtained the Degree in that subject
at the Graduate level and if subject is subsidiary (or side subject) he/she could
not be called graduate in that subject and as such the first respondent was ~~

found to be ineligible and the cancellation was correct. First respondent filed '
a writ petition which was dismissed. However, Division Bench of High Court

H 182
BIHARPUBLIC SER VICE COMMISSION v. KAMIN! 183
allowed the Letters Patent Appeal. Hence the present appeal. A
- 1'
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The advertisement is explicitly clear and states that the
candidate must be Honours in B.Sc. Zoology. In pursuance of the
advertisement, which was clear, the first respondent was not eligible for the B
appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer. Inspite of that, she applied
for the said post Initially a letter was issued by the Commission calling upon
her to appear before the Commission for interview. However, it was a mistake
on the part of the Commission. As soon as the Commission realized that the
first respondent was not having requisite qualifications for the post and was
not eligible, her candidature was rejected. When a representation was made C
by the first respondent that cancellation of her candidature was not proper
and that the decision should be reconsidered by the Commission, the
Commission thought it fit to look into her grievance and an Expert Committee
was appointed. (Para 7) [187-D-F)
D
1.2. In the field of education, a Court of Law cannot act as an expert
Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite
qualifications should better be left to educational institutions. .This is
particularly s.o when it is supported by an Expert Committee. The Expert
Committee considered the matter and observed that a person can be said to be
Honours in the subject if at the Graduate level, he/she studies such subject E
as the principal subject having eight papers and not a subsidiary, optional or
side subject having two papers. Such a decision, cannot be termed arbitrary
or otherwise objectionable. It cannot be said to be contrary to law. Single Judge
of High Court was right in dismissing the petition relying upon the Report of
the Committee and in upholding the objection of the Commission. Division F
Bench was in error in ignoring the well considered report of the Expert
Committee and in setting aside the decision of the Single Judge.
[Paras 7 and 8) (188-A-B; 187-G-H; 188-GI

1.3. The Division Bench of High Court while allowing the appeal,
observed that on the basis of the 'litmus test' admission was granted to the G
first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai.
According to the Division Bench, if the first respondent did not possess
Bachelor of Science Degree with Zoology, the Institute would not have admitted
her to the said course. Division Bench observed ·that not only the first
respondent was admitted to the said course, she had passed it with "flying
H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A colours". Division Bench was not right in applying 'litmus test' of admission
of the first respondent by Central Institute of Fisheries Education. The -
'
controversy before the Court was whether the first respondent was eligible
for the post of District Fisheries Officer, Class II. Therefore, the correct test
was not admission by Mumbai Institution. If the requirement was of Honours
in B.Sc. with Zoology and if the first respondent had cleared B.Sc. Honours
B with Chemistry, it could not be said that she was eligible to the post having
requisite educational qualifications. Therefore, by not treating her eligible
the Commission had not committed and illegality. [Para 8) (188-C-F)
\,--
University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, [1964) 4 SCR 576; AIR (1965)
c SC 591, referred to.

2.1. The Letters Patent Appeal was not allowed by the Division Bench
of the High Court on the ground that two similarly situated persons had been
appointed in year 1993 though they had similar qualifications. Even otherwise,
appellant-Commission was right in submitting that the cases related to remote
D past in 1993. He further stated that the advertisement was issued in 1999,
several other candidates who had not obtained Degree of B.Sc. (Honours) with
Zoology as principal subject had applied and all of them have been treated
ineligible and were not called for interview. [Para 9] [188-G-H] I
,
2.2. Even if in 1993, some ineligible candidates were wrongly treated
E as eligible, the first respondent cannot insist that she also must be treated
eligible though she is ineligible. Such an action cannot give rise to equality
clause enshrined by Article 14 of the Constitution. Misconstruction oi a
provision of law in one case does not give rise to a similar misconstruction in
other cases on the basis of doctrine of equality. An illegality cannot be allowed
to be perpetuated under the so-called 'equality doctrine'. That is not the sweep
F of Article 14. (Para 10] [189-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1970 of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2003 of the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 381 of 2003.
G
Lakshmi Raman Singh, Nilam Singh and Chandra Prakash for the
Appellants. -
~

Vishwajit Singh, Gopal Singh, Mohit Saha and Anukul Raj for the
Respondents.
H
Bl HAR PUBLIC SER VICE COMMISSION"· KAMIN! ICK THAKKER,J.] 185
The Judgments of the Court was delivered by A
- " C.K. THAKKER, J. I. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna on May 13, 2003 in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 381 of 2003. By the said judgment, the Division Bench B
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein-original petitioner and set
aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated Aprill, 2003 in CWJC
No. 12618 of2002.

3. Necessary facts leading to the filing of present appeal by the Bihar
Public Service Commission ('Commission' for short) are that the first C
respondent Miss Kamini, passed her B.Sc. (Hons.) in the year 1989 in Chemistry
with Zoology and Botany in First Class from Tilka Manghi Bhagalpur
University in the State of Bihar. Her principal/main subject in B.Sc. Degree
was Chemistry, alongwith Zoology and Botany as subsidiary/optional subjects.
An advertisement was issued on December 21, 1999 by the Commission D
inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of
District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer in the pay scale of
Rs.6500-10500/- in the Bihar Fisheries Service Class-II. It was stated therein
f
\ that the candidate must have qualifications of B.Sc. Zoology with a two years
Diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education,
Mumbai or a Graduate Degree in Fisheries Science (B.F.S.C.) from a recognized E
University or M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration & Management) with
Zoology from the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. Though
the first respondent was not eligible as she did not possess the requisite
qualifications of B.Sc.-Zoology, inadvertently, a letter was issued by the
Commission on October 17, 2002 calling upon her to appear before the Interview F
Board on November 516, 2002. On clos~re scrutiny of the mark-sheet, however,
.x
it was found that she was not having Hons. Degree in Zoology and was not
eligible for the post. On 5th November, 2002, therefore, when she appeared
for the interview, she was informed that she was not possessing requisite
educational qualifications and her candidature had been rejected. She made
a representation on November 6, 2002 to the Chairman of the Commission to G
reconsider the decision of cancellation of her candidature. Since there were
some cases of this nature, an Expert Committee was constituted 'iy the
-7- Commission to consider a question whether a student can be called a Graduate
in Zoology subject if he/she has cleared the Degree Examination with Zoology
as a subsidiary/optional subject and not the principal subject. The Committee H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A submitted its Report on November 24, 2002. As per the said Report, a student
will be considered a Graduate in the subject if he/she has obtained the Degree v.
in that subject at the Graduate level. The first respondent, as per the said
report, was found ineligible. Her cancellation was, therefore, held proper.

4. The first respondent was not satisfied with the Report of the Expert
B Committee and challenged the said decision by filing a writ petition in the
High Court of Judicature at Patna. The learned single Judge dismissed the
petition but the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the High Court. The
Commission has challenged the said decision of the Division Bench. ,._.

c Bench5.ofThethe learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division
High Court was wholly wrong in allowing the appeal and in
setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in ignoring
the Report submitted by the Expert Committee. He also submitted that even
otherwise, the action of the Commission could not be said to be illegal or
contrary to law. When the requisite educational qualification was B.Sc. Zoology,
D such person must have passed B.Sc. with Zoology as principal/main subject
and not as a subsidiary or optional subject. Admittedly, the first respondent
had passed B.Sc. with Chemistry as principal subject and Zoology as optional/
subsidiary subject. She, therefore, could not be held qualified and the action l

of the Commission was in consonance with law and was legal and proper. It I
was also submitted that after the representation was received from the first
E respondent, the Commission constituted an Expert Committee for considering
the grievance of the first respondent and even the Expert Committee opined
that in its opinivn i.e. in the opinion of the Committee, a student would be
called Graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in that subject at the !
Graduate level. If the subject is subsidiary (or side subject), he/she could not
F be called a Graduate in that subject. It was because a Honours student at the
Graduate level sludies eight papers in that subject whereas he/she studies
~
only two papers in subsidiary subject. In accordance with the Report, the
action was taken which was proper. The counsel also submitted that the
learned Single Judge was wholly right in upholding the contention of the t
University that the first respondent could not be said to be B.Sc. Honours
G 1.1 Zoology and dismissed the petition. The Division Bench was in error in
setting aside the said order which deserves interference.

6. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand,
supported the order passed by the Division Bench. He submitted that the first
--
respondent was eligible and possessed requisite educational qualifications. It
H
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. KAMIN! [C.K. THAKKER, J .] J87
was because of her eligibility that she applied for the post of District Fisheries A
- y Officer. Even the Commission was satisfied about her qualifications and was
asked to appear for interview. The counsel also submitted that the Division
Bench was right in observing that the first respondent was granted admission
by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. Had the first
respondent not possessed a Bachelor of Science Degree with Zoology, the B
institute would not have given her admission. It was, therefore, clear that the
first respondent was treated as B.Sc. with Zoology, she applied to Central
Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai, she was admitted in the Institute
and also cleared the course. It was also asserted in the counter affidavit filed
in this Court by the first respondent (original petitioner) that two similarly
situated persons, namely, i) Jai Prakash, and (ii) Shailendra Kumar had been C
appointed in the year 1993 though they had similar qualifications. It was,
therefore, submitted that the Division Bench was right in issuing necessary
directions and the appeal dese1ves to be dismissed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the
appeal deserves to be allowed. The advertisement is explicitly clear and states D
that the candidate must be Honours in B.Sc. Zoology. It is not in dispute that
first respondent has obtained B.Sc. Degree with First Class but her main
-, subject was Chemistry of eight papers of 800 marks and in addition to
Chemistry, she had two papers of Zoology and Botany. In pursuance of the
advertisement, which was clear, the first respondent was not eligible for the E
appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer. In spite of that, she
applied for the said post. True it is that initially a letter was issued by the
Commission on October 17, 2002 calling upon her to appear before the
Commission for interview. It was, however, a mistake on the part of the
Commission. As soon as the appellant-Commission realised that the first
respondent was not having requisite qualifications for the post and was not F
eligible, her candidature was rejected. When a representation was made by
the first respondent that cancellation of her candidature was not proper and
that the decision should be reconsidered by the Commission, the Commission
thought it fit to look into her grievance and an Expert Committee was appointed.
The Expert Committee considered the question and submitted a report on G
November 24, 2002, inter alia, stating that in its 'considered opinion', a
student would be called a Graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in
the subject at the Graduate level, meaning thereby that it must be the principal
subject. In our opinion, such a decision could not be said to be contrary to
law.
H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 8. Again, it is well settled that in the field of education, a Court of Law
Y.
cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate
possesses requisite qualifications should better be left to educational
institutions vide University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, [1964] 4 SCR 576: AIR
(1965) SC 591. This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert
Committee. The Expert Committee considered the matter and observed that a
B person can be said to be Honours in the subject if at the Graduate level, he/
she studies such subject as the principal subject having eight papers and not
a subsidiary, optional or side subject having two papers. Such a decision, in
our judgment, cannot be termed arbitrary or otherwise objectionable. The
learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was, therefore, right in dismissing the
C petition relying upon the Report of the Committee and in upholding the
objection of the Commission. The Division Bench was in error in ignoring the
well considered report of the Expert Committee and in setting aside the
decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, while allowing the
appeal, observed that the 'litmus test' was the admission granted to the first
respondent by the Central Institute offisheries Education, Mumbai. According
D to the Division Bench, if the first respondent did not possess Bachelor of
Science Degree with Zoology, the Institute would not have admitted her to
the said course. The Division Bench observed that not only the first
respondent was admitted to the said course, she had passed it with "flying
colours". In our opinion, the Division Bench was not right in applying 'litmus
E test' of admission of the first respondent by Central Institute of Fisheries
Education, Mumbai. The controversy before the Court was whether the first
respondent was eligible for the post of District Fisheries Officer, Class II. The
correct test, therefore, was not admission by Mumbai Institution. If the
requirement was of Honours in B.Sc. with Zoology and ifthe first respondent
had cleared B.Sc. Honours with Chemistry, it could not be sa.id that she wa5
F eligible to the post having requisite educational qualifications. By not treating
her eligible, therefore, the Commission had not committed any illegality.

9. With regard to two instances cited by the first respondent in her
counter affidavit before this Court, it is sufficient to state that the Letters
G Patent Appeal was :ict allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court on
that ground. Even otherwise, th.;! learned counsel for the appellant-Commission
is right in submitting that the cases related to remote past in 1993. He further
stated that the advertisement was issued in 1999, several other candidates
who had not obtained Degree of B.Sc. (Honours) with Zoology as principal
subject had applied and all of them have been treated ineligible and were not
H called for interview.
B!HAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 1·. KAMIN! [C.K. THAKKER,J.] J89

- y 10. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the A
Commission is well founded and must be accepted. Therefore, even if in 1993,
some ineligible candidates were wrongly treated as eligible, the first respondent
cannot insist that she also must be treated eligible though she is ineligible.
In our considered opinion, such an action cannot give rise to equality clause
enshrined by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well settled and needs no
authority that misconstruction of a provision of law in one case does not give B
rise to a similar misconstruction in other cases on the basis of doctrine of
equality. An illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated under the so-called
'equality doctrine'. That is not the sweep of Article 14. Even that contention,
therefore, has not impressed us.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and
c
is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court is set aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is
restored and the petition filed by the first respondent-original petitioner
stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
D
NJ. Appeal is allowed.
f
)'

-----;.