Service Law – Recruitment – Change in qualification/criteria after notification for recruitment – Respondent No.2- IBPS issued 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. [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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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] [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 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.