High Court · 2012

We have heard Mr. N. Dutta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P. 02. Sundi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate Gen eral, Assam for the respondents. Introducing himself to be an educated unemployed youth with a b 03. rilliant academic career, the petitioner has pleaded, in short that construing h imself to be qualified in all respects to participate in the process contemplate d in the aforementioned advertisement, he applied for the necessary formalities to participate in the same. He was however informed by the Commission that as h e was not possessed of a degree in Arts, Science or Commerce he was ineligible t o apply. According to the petitioner he has a degree in Bachelor in Business Ad ministration (hereinafter for short referred to as the BBA), comparable in all r espects to a bachelors degree in Commerce from the Gauhati Commerce College, Guw ahati under the Gauhati University and thus he cannot be disqualified to apply a s represented by the Commission. He has asserted that BBA is a subject of Comme rce included in the commerce stream and thus he satisfies the academic qualifica tion prescribed by Rule 10(2) of the Rules to be eligible to participate in the process involved. Contending that degree in BBA is equivalent to B.Com. in all institutions under all universities through out the country, the attempt to exc lude him from the process has been impeached by him to be arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory. Referring to the relevant prospectus issued by the concerned co llege authorities, the petitioner has endeavoured to demonstrate that BBA and Ba chelor in Business Management (for short hereinafter referred to as the BBM) are subjects of the commerce stream/discipline recognized by all universities so m uch so, that the degrees offered therefor are equivalent to that of B.Com. That the eligible criteria for admission into BBA and B.Com courses are similar has a lso been emphasized. In the alternative, he has pleaded that in case a degree in Arts, Science or Co mmerce referred to in Rule 10(2) of the Rules is construed to exclude a degree i n BBA or BBM, Rule 10(2) then being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Consti tution of India ought to be adjudged invalid.

04. The Respondent No.2, Finance (Estt.-B) Department, Govt. of Assa m while admitting that the advertisement had been issued under the Rules has dis closed in its affidavit that in response to the assertions in the writ petition, views of the Guwahati University and Dibrugarh University have meanwhile been e licited on the issue. The letters from these two universities communicating the clarifications as sought for have also been annexed to its pleadings.

05. Mr. Dutta has emphatically urged that as Rule 10(2) of the Rules prescribes a degree in Arts, Science or Commerce of a university as the minimum educational qualifications for a candidate to be eligible to appear in the comp etitive examination contemplated by the impugned advertisement, the denial of p etitioner’s participation who is possessed of a degree in BBA is per se in viola tion of the letter and spirit of the Rules and is thus liable to be adjudged ill egal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Referring to the syllabi for the B.Com. and BBA courses under the Guwahati University in particular, the learned Senior Cou nsel has underlined the identicalness thereof in all salient features to contend that the varying nomenclatures of the degrees is wholly inconsequential. In th e present day exigencies for cognate disciplines with consequential specializati ons in the inter-related domains of study and research such an illusory distinct ion perceived by the respondents is incomprehensible, he insisted. According to Mr. Dutta, it being apparent from the views expressed by the two universities t hat degree in BBA can conclusively be construed to be equivalent to the one of B .Com., the petitioner having been allowed by this Court to take the competitive examination as an interim arrangement, he ought to be assessed for his suitabili ty as an eligible candidate. That the Government having sought for clarificatio ns from the universities on the issue, the respondents now are estopped from dep arting therefrom has been emphasized as well. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam however has strenuousl 06. y maintained that Rule 10(2) having prescribed a degree in Arts, Science or Comm erce as the essential academic qualification of eligibility, the degree in BBA being a professional qualification cannot be a substitute thereof and thus the p etitioner has been rightly denied access to the competitive examination. To re inforce his plea, Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Co urt in 1993 (3) SCC 591, Dr. M.S. Mudhol And Another Versus S.D. Halegkar And Ot hers; 1993 (Suppl.) (1) SCC 714, Dr. Prit Singh Versus S.K. Mangal And Others; 2001 (4) SCC 610, Guru Nanak Dev University Versu Sanjay Kumar Katwal And Anothe r; 2002 (6) SCC 252, State of Rajasthan And Others Versus Lata Arun; 2006 (12) S CC 370, Dy. Director of Public Instruction And District Recruitment Authority an d Others Versus Shaik Moula And Another.

07. The competing pleadings with the documents on record as well as the arguments noted hereinabove have been appropriately analysed. It is not dis puted by the respondents that the petitioner had pursued the BBA course designed by the Guwahati University (hereinafter for short referred to as the University ) in the Guwahati Commerce College, Guwahti and had passed the said examination in the year 2011 by securing a 1st Class. The relevant advertisement issued by the Commission initiating a process of selection for recruitment to the post in the Assam Finance Service apart from prescribing the other conditions of eligibi lity insisted on the academic qualification in the following terms: (cid:28)Minimum educational Qualification of a candidate shall be a degree in A rts, Science or Commerce of a University recognized by the State Government. (cid:29)

08. A perusal of Rule 10(2) of the Rules, as quoted hereinbelow affi rms that the aforementioned academic qualification is a replica of the one ordai ned by the Rules. (cid:28)10. & & & & & &Qualification for recruitment through competitive exa mination; & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &.. Academic qualification - the minimum education qualifica tion of candidate shall be a degree in Arts, Science or Commerce of a university . (cid:29) (i) (ii) The other qualifications as specified in this provision being no t of any decisive relevance, is presently not being referred to.

09. As adverted to hereinabove, whereas the petitioner maintained th at his degree of BBA conforms to the requirement of Rule 10(2), in essence, the respondents seeks to distinguish it from the qualification enjoined thereby, by construing it to be a professional qualification. The clarifications provided by the Dibrugarh and Guwahati Univ ersity, having regard to the nature of the debate are of immense significance an d thus at this stage are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY (cid:29)With reference to the subject and your letter as mentioned abov e, this is to inform you that the matter had been discussed by the members of th e Equivalence Committee, Dibrugarh University. The committee members opined that BBA is not a part of the Comme rce Stream, but an interdisciplinary three year independent degree programme rec ognized by the UGC comprising of elements from Business Administration, Commerce , Economics, Statistics, Humanities, etc. However, a substantial part of the pr ogramme content is from Commerce. As such, the question of equivalence of BBA t o B.Com. doesn’t arise. Similarly, BCA is not a part of the Science Stream, but an inter disciplinary three year independent degree programme recognized by the UGC compr ising of elements from Computer Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Humanities, et c. As such, the question of equivalence of BCA to B.Sc. Computer Science doesn ’t arise. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY (cid:28)Inviting reference to your letter on the subject cited above, I would like to inform you that BBA, BCA and B.Sc. (Comp. Sc.) are Bachelor’s Deg rees just like BA, B.Sc., and B.Com. Degrees of Gauhati University. There are i ndependent bachelor’s degrees. As such, under the present academic scenario, th ese can be viewed as equivalent bachelor’s degrees.

10. These communications were made by the aforenamed universities re spectively by letters No.DU/Academic Officer/Equivelance/12/18 dated 14.03.2012 and No.GU/REGR(42)/ADMN/2010/18 dated 05.01.2012.

11. As would be evident from the above quoted texts, the Dibrugarh U niversity, though has opined that BBA is not a part of the Commerce Stream, it a s acknowledged it (BBA) to be a interdisciplinary three year independent degree programme recognized by the University Grants Commission comprising of elements from Business Administration, Commerce, Economics, Statistics, Humanities etc. a nd that a substantial part of the programme contained is from Commerce. The Gauhati University, however has in unequivocal terms conveye d that BBA, BCA, and B.Sc. (Com. Sc.) are bachelor’s degrees like BA, B.Sc and B .Com. degrees conferred by it. According to it, these are independent bachelor’ s degrees, so much so, that in the contemporary academic scenario these can be v iewed as equivalent bachelor’s degrees. The remark (cid:28)present academic scenario (cid:29) by the Gauhati University accords in our view with the contemporary institutional perspective of the interdisciplinary c onfiguration of academic courses informed with dominantly common traits in the c urriculum contents facilitating dissemination of specialized knowledge in divers ified fields of the common genre.

12. On a cumulative scrutiny of the clarifications provided by the t wo universities, we are of the unhesitant opinion that though the Dibrugarh Univ ersity has not readily construed BBA to be equivalent to B.Com. it has neverthel ess endorsed it to be a three year independent degree programme comprising of el ements of the subjects of study traceable in the curriculum for the commerce str eam at the degree level. That BBA is an interdisciplinary study programme with the above traits and recognized by the University Grants Commission has also bee n admitted by it. To reiterate, the ’Gauhati University in un qualified terms h as proclaimed BBA, BCA, B.Sc. (Comp. Sc.) to be bachelor’s degrees alike, BA, B .Sc. and B.Com degrees conferred by it. On an in-depth analysis of the views ex pressed by the two institutions involved, no mutually mutilative discordance is discernible to unassailably conclude that BBA is not a bachelor’s degree alike BA, B.Sc and B.Com of the Gauhati University recognized by the State of Assam an d as contemplated in Rule 2 (k) of the Rules.

13. We have, the above notwithstanding examined the syllabi for the B.Com. and BBA courses of the Gauhati University. Apart from the entry level qu alification as well as procedure prescribed for admission thereto, significantly , the duration of these courses are three years. Whereas, for B.Com. it is of (1 +1+1) pattern, the BBA the course is spread over 6(six) semesters. On an overal l survey of all essential features of the two courses, we feel persuaded to conc ur with the views expressed by the Gauhati University on the equivalence of BBA with the Bachelor’s degree of BA, B.Com. & B.Sc. The authorities cited at the Bar are necessarily fact oriented a nd do not as such advance the case of the respondents in the teeth of the emphat ic and unambiguous comprehension of the Gauhati University, the author of the BB A course pursued by the petitioner.

14. In Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Others (Supra), the essential academic qu alifications for the post of the Principal of the institution concerned was Mas ters Degree with at least 2nd Division from a recognized university or equivalen t and a degree in teaching from a recognized university or equivalent. The Resp ondent No.1 who was appointed to the post had M.A. degree in Political Science w ith 3rd Class, although he had secured a 2nd Class in M.Ed. His plea that as he had secured 2nd Class in the latter curriculum, he satisfied the prescribed acad emic qualification was negated, firstly, by construing M.Ed. to be a professiona l qualification and not an academic qualification and secondly as the course of M.Ed. was a part time one compared to that of M.A. M.Ed. it was thus held to be not a substitute of M.A.

15. In Dr. Prit Singh (Supra), the academic qualification stipulated was consistently good academic record with 1st or high 2nd Class (55% marks)/ Grade- B in the 7 point scale) master’s degree in any subject and also a degree in Education of an Indian University or equivalent degree of Foreign University and M.Phil. Degree or a recognized degree beyond the Masters level etc. The ap pellant who was appointed, had secured 47.1% in his M.A. Examination, though had secured 60% in the M.Ed. course. Their Lordships construed the Degree of Maste r of Education as a professional qualification and adverting to the qualificatio ns prescribed propounded that Masters Degree contemplated Degree of Master of Ar ts, in any subject independent of a degree in Education i.e. B.Ed. or M.Ed. The ir Lordships were of the view that if the master’s degree as prescribed was to i nclude Masters Degree in education, there would have been no necessity of prescr ibing the additional requirement of (cid:28)Degree in Education (cid:29). The possibility that a person securing 3rd Division in M.A. with high 2nd Class marks in M.Ed. exami nation by completing a part time course of one year could then be appointed, if the appellant’s contention of equivalence of these two degrees was sustained, th en could not be ruled out was comprehended by their Lordships. It was held tha t such a consequence was neither intended nor suited to the exigency of excellen ce of standard of teaching in the institution. Whereas, in Dy. Director of Public Instruction and District Recruitment Authorit y and Others (Supra) State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Supra) the primary emphasis w as against routine and uncalled for inferential conclusions by a court of law on the question of equivalence of qualifications and the recognition thereof excep t in appropriate contingencies, contextual facts in Guru Nanak Dev University ( Supra) are also distinguishable from those in hand. In (cid:28)Guru Nanak Dev (Supra) the appellate University did not rec 16. ognize the Degree of M.A. (English) conferred by the Annamalai University throug h distance education. Referring to the prescribed academic qualifications for t he three year LL.B professional course of the appellant University, to which the respondent had sought admission, their Lordships noticed that to take up M.A. ( English) under the Annamalai University, a candidate was not required to have th e basic bachelor’s degree, which was an indispensable requirement of eligibility for admission to the course involved. Their Lordships observed that equivalenc e is a technical academic matter and could neither be implied nor assumed. Grea t emphasis was laid on the decision of the appellant University which did not re cognize the degree of M.A. (English) obtained through distance education as equi valent to its master’s degree. The caveat against interference with a policy de cision of an academic institution by the courts was reiterated. These decisions dwelt on factual orientations in variance from t hose attendant on the present disceptation and thus in the face of the unambiguo us view of the Gauhati University, in particular do not reinforce the plea of th e respondents. In view of the determination as above, as a corollary, the decis 17. ion of the respondents to disqualify the petitioner on the ground of lack of ac ademic qualification and to deny his participation in the selection process init iated by the advertisement aforementioned cannot be sustained in law and on fact s and is thus adjudged to be illegal and invalid. Noticeably, the challenge to the vires of Rule 10(2) had not as such been pursued, presumably in the backdrop of the clarification provided by the two universities. The present adjudicatio n therefore has not resorted to any scrutiny in that perspective. Be that as it may, the petition is allowed in the above terms. The respondents would treat t he petitioner to be academically qualified to participate in the selection proce ss and would take necessary steps in connection therewith, strictly in accordanc e with law. No costs.