Courts Can't Expand Scope Of Qualification Prescribed By Employer By Reading Into It A Higher Qualification: J&K&L High Court

A division bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M A Chaudhary was hearing an intra-Court appeal which was an upshot of dispute between appellant (Respondent in writ petition) and the respondent (originally writ petitioner).

Whereas the appellant was selected for the post of Workshop Assistant in the respondent-University, the same was challenged by the respondent by way of a writ petition, on the ground that the appellant, possessing the qualification of Diploma in Agricultural Engineering, was not competent to be appointed as Workshop Assistant as she was not possessing the prescribed qualification of ITI.

The appellant had argued that qualification of Diploma in Agricultural Engineering possessed by the appellant presupposes the acquisition of prescribed qualification i.e ITI certificate in the trades of carpenter/Fitter/Turner/Latheoperator/Machinist and hence, the appellant is eligible.

The single bench had quashed the selection and appointment of the appellant and had also been directed to appoint the writ petitioner against the post of Workshop Assistant and a cost of Rs.10000/- was also imposed upon the respondent-University, to be paid to the writ petitioner within two weeks from the date of passing of the judgment.

In appeal, the division bench observed that the view taken by the Writ Court is absolutely correct and unexceptionable as the appellant herein was not possessing the essential educational qualification prescribed for the post. The court placed strong reliance on the supreme court judgement in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and ors vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) wherein Supreme court observed

"It would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in 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".

Declining to accept the argument of the counsel for the appellant that a higher qualification in the same line presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification of ITI the bench also found it worthwhile to record the observations of the supreme court in Zonal Manager, Bank of India vs Aarya K. Babu, 2019 wherein SC while dealing with a similar controversy had observed..

"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. Having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in the 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".

Applying the ratio of the aforementioned cases the bench observed the qualification prescribed in the impugned Advertisement Notice for the post of 'Workshop Assistant' is not the minimum qualification, but is essential qualification which in turn means that a person seeking to be appointed as Workshop Assistant must essentially possess the qualification prescribed. Indisputably, the appellant does not possess that qualification and hence his claim to be considered for the said post falls flat on face, the bench noted.

While upholding the single bench judgement and dismissing the appeal the division bench ruled that the writ Court was absolutely correct in holding the appellant ineligible for the post in question and consequently, quashing his selection and appointment. The view taken by the Writ Court is, thus, unexceptionable and cannot be interfered with, the bench concluded.

Case Title: Qazi Gousia Jeelani V/s Mehraj Ud Din Najar and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 68 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment