Devising Appointment Criteria To Public Post Is Govt Matter: Rajasthan HC Disposes Writ Challenging Recruitment Rules For Asst PRO
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the question of what should be the educational qualification and experience requirement for appointment to a public post are the matters to be decided by the Government authorities and as an employer, the State administration is best suited to frame its rules to fulfil the requirements of a post in question. The division bench of Chief Justice...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the question of what should be the educational qualification and experience requirement for appointment to a public post are the matters to be decided by the Government authorities and as an employer, the State administration is best suited to frame its rules to fulfil the requirements of a post in question.
The division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas observed,
"Essentially, what should be the education qualification and experience requirement for appointment to a public post are the matters to be decided by the Government authorities. As an employer, the State administration is best suited to frame its rules to fulfil the requirements of a post in question."
The court observed that the State authorities also have the assistance of the experts in the field in the process of framing such policy decisions. Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, would not interfere with such decisions unless the qualifications prescribed are shown to be irrational or mala fide in such a way to favour a particular person or a class of persons, added the court.
In the present case, the petitioners applied to the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer. As per Schedule-I to the Rajasthan Public Relations Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 (Rules), which are framed by the State government, the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer is to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment through Rajasthan Staff Selection Board.
As per the Rules, minimum qualification recruitment is in two parts: First part pertains to graduation with three years' experience of Journalism in specified institutions. The second part, which is alternative, is graduate with a diploma or degree in Journalism.
The petitioners had challenged the vires of these Rules for recruitment alleging that the requirement of graduation is unnecessary and should be struck down.
The court opined that minimum educational qualification of graduation is necessary in terms of the duties and responsibilities of an Assistant Public Relations Officer. The court further opined that the rules framed by the State government, in exercise of delegated powers of legislation, do not suffer from any illegality.
The court also observed that nothing prevented the petitioners from making a representation for revising the rules. The court noted that if such representation is filed by the petitioners, it is always open to the Government to take into consideration such representation, if due to change in the circumstances, in the opinion of the Government, Rules require any modification.
The counsel for the petitioners contended that the Rules are framed in the year 1975 when the course of Journalism was not so prevalent and now, when many reputed institutions offer such renowned course in Journalism, the instances of the State authorities to retain graduation as minimum qualification is unreasonable.
He pointed out that the principal role of the Assistant Public Relations Officer is to communicate on behalf of the Government with the press. He submitted that in such a role, his education in Journalism would be far more useful than graduation in any subject.
Case Title: Madhav Singh Mehru and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
Click Here To Read/Download Order