RAVINDER KUMAR v. HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & Ors.

Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

#1. Prayer made in the present petition is for granting 04 marks to the petitioner on account of his graduation.

#2. Learned State Counsel refers to Paragraph No.8 of the reply dated

09.06.2023 filed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Administration Police Headquarters, Haryana, Panchkula to state that as per the final result dated 16.06.2022, the petitioner has secured 42.85 marks while the cutoff for ESM-General category was 46.19; and he relies on the Associate Degree, which cannot be considered equivalent to the Bachelor’s Degree. The relevant paragraphs No.8 and 9 thereof read thus: - “8. That the candidates who have qualified the PMT stage were sent for scrutiny of document. The petitioner also qualified the stage of PMT and thus appeared for scrutiny of documents on 11.01.2022. At the time of scrutiny of documents, petitioner was found eligible under ESM- CWP-7959-2023 -2- General category (copy of the scrutiny form is attached as Annexure R- 1/1). The petitioner obtained total 42.85 marks i.e. 42.85 marks in written examination, 0 marks for additional qualification, 0 marks for socio-economic. The final cut off for ESM- General category was 46.19 marks and waiting cut off is 45.35 as per final result dated 16.06.2022. The detailed marks of the petitioner are as under:- Roll No. Sr. No. Candidate Category PST Result Written Marks PMT Result Addl. Marks Socio Marks

#1. 4201335312 Ravinder ESM- General Q

42.85 Q 0 0 G total Marks 100 42.85 Due to the lesser marks than the last selected candidate, the petitioner was not selected in the final result.

#9. That the main prayer of the petitioner in his writ petition is to grant additional 4 marks for higher qualification i.e. Associate degree in Arts. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner mentioned and claimed the qualification of B.A. in the application form, however, the petitioner attached the Associate degree of diploma in arts at the time of filing the application form and did not submit any documents to prove that his B.A. qualification completed before the closing date as claimed in application form. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the additional marks are to be given in case, a candidate having higher qualification i.e. graduation degree and not for an associate degree. It is further pertinent to mention here that at the time of scrutiny of documents, the petitioner did not submit any documents to prove additional qualification of degree. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the associate degree submitted by the petitioner could not be considered equivalent to the Degree. It was duty of candidate to prove his eligibility on the cut-off date and petitioner has failed in discharging his duty. Thus this document which is submitted by the petitioner could not be considered in view of term and conditions of the said advertisement Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for awarding the 4 marks for higher qualification. In this context, it is also mentioned here that the Advt. No. 04/2020 was published on 30.12.2020 and opening date for submission CWP-7959-2023 -3- of online applications was 11.01.2021 whereas the closing date for submission of online application 25.02.2021. The petitioner was not in possession of the B.A. certificate at the time of filing up the online application form and scrutiny of documents.”

#3. No rebuttal by way of replication has been filed to the above, despite copy of reply was duly supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

#4. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment passed in Devender Bhaskar vs. State of Haryana, (2024) 19 SCC 506, wherein the order of High Court holding the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, was quashed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, while relying on a plethora of judgments, including Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (1975) 3 SCC 76, J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 288, State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610, and Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404, relevant paras whereof read thus: “21. In Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India [Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 454] , it was held that the question regarding 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. It was further held that where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the CWP-7959-2023 -4- purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong. 22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P. [J. Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P., (1990) 1 SCC 288 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 76] this Court held that it is not for the court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts. 23. In State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun [State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 859 : 5 SCEC 268] this Court held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held thus: “13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to educational decide whether qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” particular a

#24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610 : 3 SCEC 452] this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognised as such. 25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 353] , it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other CWP-7959-2023 -5- given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.”

#5. Significantly, a candidate is required to have conformed to the qualifications and other conditions that are essential for consideration of appointment to the post, as has been advertised. It is not for this Court to venture into the equivalence of the degrees, thus in light of the judgment referred to hereinabove, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

#6. Other misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. JULY 27, 2026. Rajender (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No