Supreme Court of India
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KOCHI & ORS.versusAARYA K. BABU & ANR.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 882
- Decided
- 8 August 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R BANUMATHI
Holding
A change in qualification criteria after a recruitment notification must be effected through a corrigendum inviting fresh applications; the court cannot retrospectively equate qualifications not specified in the original notification.
Summary
The case concerned recruitment of Agricultural Field Officers by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) for Bank of India. The notification dated 17‑11‑2014 required a B.Sc. in Agro‑Forestry, but the two private respondents held B.Sc. in Forestry and were provisionally selected before their appointments were cancelled. The Kerala High Court treated Forestry as equivalent to Agro‑Forestry and set aside the termination orders. The Supreme Court held that qualification criteria specified in a recruitment notification are sacrosanct and any mid‑process change must be effected by a corrigendum inviting fresh applications, not applied retrospectively to benefit only the selected candidates. It further ruled that determining equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter for the government/expert bodies, not for the court. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the bank was directed to appoint the respondent in a fresh vacancy without creating a precedent. The Court also exercised its discretion under Article 142 to grant relief in the specific circumstances of the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether a court can declare a qualification not mentioned in a recruitment notification as equivalent to the prescribed qualification.
- Whether a change in qualification criteria after issuance of a recruitment notification but before completion of the selection process can be applied retrospectively to candidates already selected without a corrigendum.
- Whether the employer must issue a corrigendum and invite applications from all candidates meeting the revised criteria.
Legislation cited
Subjects
recruitmentqualification criteriaequivalence of educational qualificationscorrigendumservice lawselection processjudicial interventionBank of IndiaIBPSAgricultural Field Officer
Judgment
[2019] 11 S.C.R. 627 627
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, A
KOCHI & ORS.
v.
AARYA K. BABU & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6206 of 2019) B
AUGUST 08, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Recruitment – Change in qualification/criteria
after notification for recruitment – Respondent No.2- IBPS issued
C
notification for post of Agricultural Field Officer (scale-1) –
Requirement in the notification was of graduates possessing degree
in ‘Agro-Forestry’ – Process of selection was undertaken and the
private respondents were provisionally selected – However, after
verification of their documents, their selection was cancelled on
the ground that private respondents did not possess the qualification D
prescribed in the notification – As the private respondents had
degree in ‘Forestry’ – Writ petitions – High Court held that
qualification of the private respondents was appropriate – That
apart, error was taken note by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farms
Welfare that no 4-year Bachelor program in Agro-Forestry was
E
available in the Country and it was suggested that B.Sc(Forestry)
graduation be considered for the position of Agricultural Field
Officer – Accordingly, a corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 was issued
– In that background, the termination orders of the private
respondents were set aside by the High Court – On appeal, held: If
there is any change in qualification/criteria after the notification is F
issued but before the completion of the selection process and the
employer/recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be
incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating
the changes to the notification and invite applications from those
qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along
G
with the applications received in response to the initial notification
– In the instant case, the private respondents were issued appointment
letters on 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively, the change was
made subsequent thereto by the general corrigendum dated
16.01.2016 by including the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry), which
H
627
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.
A would be effective from that day by providing opportunity to all
those holding that qualification – Therefore, in such case the change
of qualification whereby the qualification of the private respondents
gets included subsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone when
several others who could have applied were prevented from doing
so – In the said circumstance, the orders of the High Court set aside.
B
Service Law – Recruitment – Power of the Court in providing
equivalence of qualification – Held: The question in regard to
equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question
based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic
standards and practical attainments of such qualifications and where
C the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of
an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and
expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court,
uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights
necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not
D lightly disturb the decision of the Government.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. If the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. is kept
in perspective it is clear that while examining the correctness of
E the action of the employer what would be sacrosanct will be the
qualification criteria published in the Notification, since if any
change made to the qualification criteria midstream is accepted
by the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it, without
making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to
F causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification
but had not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly
they did not possess the qualification sought for in the Notification
though they otherwise held another degree. Therefore, if there
is any change in qualification/criteria after the notification is issued
but before the completion of the selection process and the
G employer/recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be
incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating
the changes to the notification and invite applications from those
qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along
with the applications received in response to the initial
H
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, 629
KOCHI v. AARYA K. BABU
notification. The same principle will hold good when a A
consideration is made by the Court. [Para 14][637-C-F]
2. If in that background the instant facts are taken note, it
would disclose that the Notification depicting the qualification
required as Degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was issued on
17.11.2014 and the process of selection had come to an end when B
the private respondents herein were issued the appointment
letters dated 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively. Admittedly
as on such date the Notification required the candidates
possessing B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) but the private respondents
were graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not qualified
to respond. The change was made subsequent thereto by the C
general corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including the
qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry), which would be effective from
that day by providing opportunity to all those holding that
qualification. Therefore, in such cases the change of qualification
whereby the qualification of the private respondents gets included D
subsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone when several
others who could have applied were prevented from doing
so.[Para 15][637-G-H; 638-A-B]
3. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence
relating to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issue E
has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
decision relied upon by the appellants in the case of Mohammad
Shujat Ali & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, wherein it is held that
the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications
is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation
of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of F
such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is
based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses
the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately
discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant
data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the G
purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb
the decision of the Government. [Para 16][638-B-D]
4. In that backdrop, though in the instant facts presently
the qualification possessed by the private respondents is decided
H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.
A to be included for the purpose of recruitment to the post of
Agricultural Field Officer, as on the date of the recruitment
Notification the same was not included therein, which cannot be
substituted by the Court with retrospective effect for the reasons
stated above. Therefore, in the said circumstance, in the present
facts, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion. [Para 17]
B [638-E-F]
Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(1975) 3 SCC 76 : [1975] 1 SCR 449 – followed.
Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University &
Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 555 : [2009] 2 SCR 907 – relied
C on.
Kishor Deoramji Gahane v. The Institute of Banking
Personnel Selection & Others. (judgment dated
09.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in W.P.(C)
No.4823/2015) – referred to.
D
Case Law Reference
[2009] 2 SCR 907 relied on Para 14
[1975] 1 SCR 449 followed Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6206
E of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2016 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 313 of 2016.
With
F Civil Appeal No. 6207 of 2019.
A. B. Dial, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Ms. Sakshi
Gaur, Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Sorabh Dahiya, Vibhu Sharma, Anmol
Mehta (for M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co.), Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Ananya Datta
Majumdar, Kaleeswaram Raj, Ms. Romsha Raj, Nishe Rajen Shonker,
Suvidutt M.S., Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora, Ms. Ritu Arora, Anuvrat Sharma,
G Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. In the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.16567/2016 the
H appellant-Bank of India is before this Court assailing the order dated
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, 631
KOCHI v. AARYA K. BABU [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]
24.05.2016 passed in W.A.No.313/2016. The said appeal before the A
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam was filed against the order passed in
WP(C) No.39083/2015 whereby the learned Single Judge of that High
Court had allowed the writ petition by an order dated 20.01.2016. In the
appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24764/2016 the appellant-Syndicate
Bank Ltd. is assailing the order dated 24.05.2016 passed in Writ Appeal
No.404/2016, wherebythe Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala B
had upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C)No.17403/2015 dated 20.12.2016.
3. Though in these two appeals the parties are different, keeping
in view the question arising for consideration is the same in both these
appeals and since the High Court has disposed of the appeals through C
the common order, these two appeals are taken up, heard together and
disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of narration of facts,
the case as pleaded in SLP(C) No.16567/2016 is taken note. In respect
of the recruitment to be made in the Banking Sector the respondent
No.2 herein, an institute of Indian Banking Personnel Selection (“IBPS”
for short) undertakes the process of recruitment by issue of appropriate D
Notification in that regard.
4. In the instant fact situation, the Notification dated 17.11.2014
was issued calling for applications from interested candidates for the
different posts that were advertised therein. The consideration herein
relates to the recruitment for the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale- E
1). The private respondents in both these appeals are applicants for the
said post. The process of selection was undertaken and the private
respondents in both these appeals were provisionally selected, subject to
verification of their documents and were accordingly allotted by the IBPS
to the respective appellant Banks herein. However, the selection of both F
the private respondents was cancelled on the ground that the private
respondents herein did not possess the qualification prescribed in the
notification for appointment. It is in that regard the private respondents
claiming to be aggrieved by such action were before the learned Single
Judge of the Kerala High Court assailing the termination orders in the
respective writ petitions as taken note above. G
5. The learned Single Judge on taking note that though the
requirement in the Notification was of graduates possessing Degree in
“Agro-Forestry” had taken into consideration that the private respondents
herein had secured the 4-year Degree in “Forestry” and held the same
H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.
A to be sufficient. In that regard the learned Single Judge had taken note
that there is no 4-year Degree Programme being offered in this country
for”Agro-Forestry” and in that background on referring to the information
furnished by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (“ICAR” for
short) which had been relied upon by the private respondents herein,
had taken into consideration that as per the said institution, the definition
B
of Agriculture included “Forestry”. In that background finding the same
to be an appropriate qualification had favourably considered the case of
the private respondents herein. That apart it was also taken note that
the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare as also the Ministry of
Finance have subsequently taken note of the error that there is no 4-
C year Course in “Agro-Forestry” in the country and that “Agro-Forestry”
is covered comprehensively as the subject in ICAR approved syllabus
for B.Sc. in “Forestry” and that it can be considered as the qualification
for the post of Agricultural Field Officer in Banks. In that background,
taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter the termination
orders issued to the private respondents in withdrawing the offer of
D
appointment were set aside and the appellants herein were directed to
take back the private respondents into service.
6. The appellants herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said
decision of the learned Singlewere before the Division Bench in the
appeals as referred to above. The Division Bench also had taken note of
E these aspects and the consideration made by the learned Single Judge in
this regard was upheld. In the course of the proceedings in the Writ
Appeal the appellants herein had relied upon the judgment dated
09.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench at Nagpur in W.P.(C) No.4823/2015 titled as Kishor
F DeoramjiGahane vs. The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
& Others. The said judgment was cited since the very issue relating to
qualification of B.Sc. in”Agro-Forestry”had arisen for consideration and
in that background it was also taken note therein that a corrigendum
dated 16.01.2016 had been issued whereby the 4 year B.Sc. Degree in
Forestry, Agricultural Biotechnology, Food Science and Agricultural
G Business Management were also included as the recognised educational
qualification for appointment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer
(Scale-1). In that circumstance, in that case it was noticed that the
advertisement was of the year 2015 while the corrigendum was issued
on 16.01.2016 and in that view the Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench
H
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, 633
KOCHI v. AARYA K. BABU [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]
had declined the relief to the petitioner therein by holding that the A
qualification depicted in the notification will be relevant. The Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court in the present case had however,
respectfully disagreed with the said view and proceeded to uphold the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal filed by
the appellants herein. It is in that light the appellants are before this
B
Court.
7. In the above background we have heard Shri A.B. Dial, learned
senior counsel in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24764/2016, Shri
Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing in the appeal arising out of the
SLP© No.16567/2016 as also Shri Kaleeswaram Raj and Shri Jagat
Arora respective learned counsel for the respondents. We have also C
perused the appeal papers including the impugned judgmentspassed by
the High Court.
8. Though extensive arguments were advanced the issue lies in a
very narrow compass. The short question for consideration is as to
whether the courts would be justified in undertaking the exercise of D
providing equivalence to another qualification so as to declare it to be
equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the recruitment Notification
by taking note of the extraneous factors though such equivalence of
qualificationis not declared by the employer who makes the recruitment.
The second aspect would be as to whether any particular educational E
qualification made eligible subsequent to issue of recruitment Notification
can be considered retrospectively in respect of the recruitment process
which has commenced prior to such an additional educational
qualificationbeing treated as eligible and the process of recruitment in
respect of such notification is already concluded. In that background an
examination of these aspects is necessary in the instant case. F
9. The qualification prescribed for the post of Agricultural Field
Officer (Scale-1) as issued under the Notification dated 17.11.2014 which
is the subject matter herein, is as hereunder:
“4 year Degree (graduation) inAgriculture/ Horticulture/ Animal G
Husbandry /Veterinary Science/ Dairy Science / Agri Engineering
/Fishery Science/Pisciculture/Agri Marketing & Co-operation/Co-
operation & Banking/Agro-Forestry.”
(emphasis supplied)
H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.
A 10. The private respondents herein had applied in response to the
said notification, on 24.11.2014 and despite the private respondent in the
appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.16567/2016 had admittedly possessed
the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) had indicated the qualification as
Agro-Forestry in the application. Be that as it may, the process of selection
was undertaken and appointment letter was issued to the private
B
respondents in the two appeals, on 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015
respectively. In the letter of appointment, it was specifically mentioned
that the appointment is subject to producing the original documents which
included the proof regarding qualification. Needless to mention that the
proof regarding qualification refers to the qualification as depicted in the
C notification dated 17.11.2014. However, since it was subsequently noticed
that she did not possess the degree in B.Sc.(Agro-Forestry), she was
issued a show cause notice dated 03.11.2015 and she was terminated
through the order dated 10.12.2015. A similar course was adopted in so
far as the other private respondent as well. It is no doubt true that on
18.11.2015 anOffice Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of
D
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Co-
operation and Farmers Welfare (Policy Division), whereby on taking
note that no 4-year Bachelor Program in Agro-Forestry is available in
the country and since Agro-Forestry is covered comprehensively as a
subject in the ICARapproved syllabus for B.Sc.(Forestry),it was
E suggested thatit will be appropriate that B.Sc. (Forestry) graduation be
considered for the position of Agricultural Field Officer in
Banks.Accordingly, a corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 was issued by IBPS.
It is not in dispute that based on such decision taken,for the recruitment
made subsequently, B.Sc. (Forestry) was included as the qualification
for recruitment of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I).
F
11. The issue however is, when the said qualification was not
depicted in the relevant recruitment Notification which is the subject
matter and in that circumstance if recruitment has been wrongly made
of the persons who did not possess the qualification which was notified
but had still applied and the appointment made on that basis is sustained,
G would it not beto the disadvantage of other persons who had possessed
the same qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) degree but had not applied
since the Notification did not depict the said qualification but had indicated
some other qualification. In that regard, at the outset it is necessary to
take note that the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
H
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, 635
KOCHI v. AARYA K. BABU [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]
Nagpur Bench in the case of Kishor DeoramjiGahane (supra) relied A
upon by the appellants herein before the High Court in fact had addressed
this issue wherein it was held that the corrigendum issued subsequent to
the advertisement would not be beneficial,since the petitioner therein did
not possess the qualification notified in recruitment Notification.
12. The learned counsel for the private respondents however B
contended that the High Court was justified in taking note that the course
forDegree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was not being imparted in the country
and in such event the very Notification seeking for candidates possessing
4-year Degree in B.Sc.(Agro-Forestry) was erroneous and as such the
Degree in B.Sc. (Forestry)should be considered. The learned counsel
seeks to rely upon the Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, C
1979 to contend that in Clause-16.9 thereof a reference is made to “Special
Officers” wherein it is indicated that one of the category therein being
“Agriculture Officers”, the qualification thereunder indicated is Degree
in Agriculture and/or allied subjects and recruited/promoted/converted
as such. In that view the learned counsel contends that as per the D
information furnished by ICAR dated 01.04.2015 the definition of
“Agriculture” would include “Forestry” and in such event it will have to
be construed that even though the Notification seeks for candidates
possessing Degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) it would include B.Sc.
(Forestry) which is an allied subject of Agriculture.
E
13. Though we have taken note of the said contention we are
unable to accept the same. We are of such opinion in view of the well-
established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and
thereby include certain qualifications which have not been included in
the Notification by the employer. Further the rules as referred to by the
learned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion F
of officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in the
advertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under the
recruitment rules, it would have been open for the candidate concerned
to challenge the Notification alleging denial of opportunity. On the other
hand, having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in the G
Notification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that the
qualification possessed by such candidate is equivalent and thereby seek
consideration for appointment nor will it even be open for the employer
to change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selection
process or accept any qualification other than the one notified since it
H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.
A would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the
qualification but had not applied as it was not notified.
14. In fact, this view is fortified by the decision of this Court in the
case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University &Ors.
(2009) 4 SCC 555 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. In
B the said decision it is held as hereunder:
24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the
University changed the rule in the midstream which was not
permissible. The University can always have a person as a
Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but
C the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself,
so that there is no confusion and all persons who could be
intending candidates, should know as to what is the subject
which the person is required to teach and what essential
qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making
application for filling up the said post.
D
25. We are not disputing the fact that in the matter of selection
of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee should be
final, but at the same time, the Selection Committee cannot act
arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the
selection process during its midstream. Merajuddin Ahmad did
E not possess a degree in Pure Chemistry and therefore, it was
rightly held by the High Court that he did not possess the
minimum qualification required for filling up the post of Lecturer
in Chemistry, for Pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are
two different subjects.
F 26. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the post
of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a
person belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when
the same having been specifically not mentioned in the
advertisement that a Master’s degree-holder in the said subject
G would also be suitable for being considered. There could have
been intending candidates who would have applied for becoming
candidate as against the said advertised post, had they known
and were informed through advertisement that Industrial
Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the said
post.
H
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, 637
KOCHI v. AARYA K. BABU [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]
27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, A
which is midway could not have changed the essential
qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage
held that a Master’s degree-holder in Industrial Chemistry would
be better suited for manning the said post without there being
any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that
B
the University is now manning the said post by having a person
from the discipline of Pure Chemistry also leads to the
conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised
was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to Pure
Chemistry stream.
If the above decision is kept in perspective it is clear that while C
examining the correctness of the action of the employer what would be
sacrosanct will be the qualification criteria published in the Notification,
since if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream is
accepted by the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it,
without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to D
causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification but had
not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possess
the qualification sought for in the Notification though they otherwise
held another degree. Therefore, if there is any change in qualification /
criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of the
selection process and the employer / recruiting agency seeks to adopt E
the change it will be incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum
incorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications from
those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along
with the applications received in response to the initial notification. The
same principle will hold good when a consideration is made by the Court. F
15. If in that background the instant facts are taken note, it would
disclose that the Notification depicting the qualification required as Degree
in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was issued on 17.11.2014 and the process of
selection had come to an end when the private respondents herein were
issued the appointment letters dated 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 G
respectively. Admittedly as on such date the Notification required the
candidates possessing B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) but the private respondents
were graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not qualified to
respond.The change was made subsequent thereto by thegeneral
corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including the qualification of B.Sc.
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.
A (Forestry), which would be effective from that day by providing
opportunity to all those holding that qualification. Therefore, in such
cases the change of qualification whereby the qualification of the private
respondents gets included subsequently cannot enure to their benefit
alone when several others who could have applied were prevented from
doing so.
B
16. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence relating
to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issue has been settled
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Mohammad Shujat
Ali &Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors, (1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it is
C held that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications
is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the
relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such
qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the
recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite
D knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function,
the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical
insightsnecessary for the purpose of determiningequivalence, would not
lightly disturb the decision of the Government.
17. In that backdrop, though in the instant facts presently the
E qualification possessed by the private respondents is decided to be included
for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer,
as on the date of the recruitment Notification the same was not included
therein, which cannot be substituted by the Court with retrospective
effect for the reasons stated above. Therefore, in the said circumstance,
in the present facts, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion.
F We, however, make it clear that though we have referred to the legal
position and applied the same to the case of the parties who are before
us, if in the case of similar recruitment, the employers themselves have
permitted the equivalence and have continued such of those officers
recruited, this decision shall not be applied to initiate action against such
G officers at this distant point of time. Subject to the above, the orders
passed by the High Court of Kerala which are impugned herein are set
aside.
18. Having arrived at the above conclusion we also take note of
the submission of the learned counsel for the private respondent in the
H appeal arising out of SLP© No.16567/2016 namely Smt. Aarya K.
ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, 639
KOCHI v. AARYA K. BABU [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]
Babuthat she is placed in a very difficult circumstances subsequent to A
the discharge from service which is also due to certain set back in her
personal life. Though we do not wish to articulate the actual fact situation
narrated we have no reason to disbelieve the same, hence, we find it
appropriate that in her case it is necessary to exercise our discretion
under Article 142 of the Constitution to serve the ends of justice and do
B
complete justice without prejudicing either of the parties. In that view,
we direct the appellant Bank of India to provide appointment to Smt.
Aarya K. Babu as Agricultural Field Officer or such other equivalent
post if the vacancy exists as on today or in the vacancy that would arise
in future. In that regard it is made clear that the same will be considered
as afresh appointment from the date of appointment and no previous C
benefit can be claimed by her. Further, it is made clear that this direction
is issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the
same shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.
19. Subject to the above observations, both the appeals are allowed
with no order as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of. D
Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "recruitment"Sign in to search