Haryana Public Service Commission v. Vijay Luxmi

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-25947-2023. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-25967-2023. Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.26085 and 26880 of 2023. Mr. Pardeep Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-30875-2024. Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent/HPSC. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

#1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-25947-2023.

#2. Prayer in the writ petition (CWP-25947-2023) filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned rejection order dated

14.11.2023 (Annexure P-13) vide which the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) in the subject of Physical Education for rest of Haryana Cadre has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner as fully eligible candidate for the post of PGT in CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 3 the subject of Physical Education for rest of Haryana Cadre and permit her to participate in further selection process/interview.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the Haryana Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No.31 of 2023 inviting online applications for recruitment to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs), including 136 posts of PGT (Physical Education) for Rest of Haryana Cadre. The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for the said post, participated in the subject knowledge test, successfully qualified the same and was consequently called for interview. It is contended that despite having qualified the written examination and being otherwise eligible, the petitioner received a notice respondent/Commission pointing out an alleged deficiency in her educational qualification and, after submission of her explanation, her candidature was rejected vide communication/order dated 14.11.2023 solely on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) or Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) or its equivalent from a recognized University. It is further argued that the petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.A., B.Ed., M.P.Ed. and has also qualified the Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was granted admission to the Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) course by Kurukshetra University on the basis of her Bachelor's Degree with CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 4 Health and Physical Education, which itself demonstrates that the Bachelor's Degree possessed by the petitioner is recognized as an equivalent qualification for pursuing higher studies in Physical Education. It is further contended that once a recognized University has accepted the petitioner's Bachelor's qualification as sufficient for admission to M.P.Ed., the respondents cannot hold that she lacks the requisite qualification for appointment to the post, in question.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on an erroneous and hyper-technical interpretation of the eligibility conditions contained in the advertisement. It is argued that the advertisement requires possession of M.A. Physical Education or M.P.Ed. with at least 50% marks coupled with Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) or Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) or its equivalent from a recognized University. He has further submitted that the petitioner had passed her Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) in the year 2010 from Kurukshetra University and she had obtained the admission in Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) on the basis of her B.A. with Health and Physical Education. Further, the Kurukshetra University treats B.A. with Health and Physical Education as equivalent to Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.), as is evident from the Prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University for the Sessions 2007- 08, and therefore, she fulfills the prescribed qualifications. CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 5

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the respondents have travelled beyond the terms of the advertisement by refusing to recognize an equivalent qualification without obtaining any opinion from the competent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the issue involved in the present petition(s) is essentially one of academic equivalence and could not have been decided unilaterally by the recruiting agency. It is submitted that the petitioner had successfully cleared the subject knowledge test and was called for interview, thereby demonstrating that she was otherwise eligible for consideration, and rejection of her candidature at the threshold defeats the object of selecting meritorious candidates.

#6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by way of an interim order dated 17.11.2023, permitted the petitioner(s), namely, Sushma Devi and Vijay Luxmi to provisionally participate in the interview. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner along with Vijay Luxmi appeared in the interview conducted by the respondent/Commission and their results have been kept in a sealed cover, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Moreover, in pursuance of the interim order dated 07.05.2024, the provisional results of petitioner – Sushma Devi and Vijay Luxmi had already been produced before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, according to which, both the said petitioner(s) have obtained more marks than the CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 6 last recommended candidate in their respective category. It is, therefore, contended that since the petitioner has already participated in the entire selection process, the only issue which survives for consideration is with regard to the validity of the rejection of her candidature on the ground of educational qualification.

#7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-10470-2017, titled as Sandeep Dhull vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others, decided on 19.07.2019 wherein it has been held that if a candidate possesses a higher qualification in the same subject, it is deemed that he or she also possesses the lower qualification prescribed for the post. Therefore, a candidate having the qualification of Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) cannot be denied consideration merely on the ground that he or she does not possess the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.).

#8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Haryana Public Service Commission has referred to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) and submits that “Essential Qualification” was provided under Clause (6) of the advertisement which provides “M.A. Physical Education or M.P.Ed. with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) or Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) or its equivalent from a recognized university”. As such, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is totally CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 7 misplaced. It is not a case where the petitioner possesses a higher qualification than the one set out in the advertisement. A candidate who participate in the selection process is required to have M.A. Physical Education or M.P.Ed. with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) or Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) or its equivalent from a recognized university, whereas the petitioner’s essential qualification is B.A., B.Ed., M.P.Ed. and has also qualified the Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET). Moreover, the petitioner has neither challenged Clause (6) of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) nor the statutory rules. He, while relying upon the short written statement filed on behalf of the respondent/Commission, has argued that the respondent/Commission has acted strictly in accordance with the requisition received from the Department and the statutory recruitment rules governing the post. It is further contended that the respondent/Commission has no authority to either relax or alter the essential educational qualifications prescribed under the applicable service rules or the advertisement and is duty bound to examine the eligibility of candidates strictly on the basis of the notified qualifications.

#9. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that, in compliance with the interim order dated 17.11.2023, passed by this Court, the petitioner was provisionally interviewed and her provisional result, which had already been produced before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, revealed that the petitioner had obtained more marks than the CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 8 last recommended candidate in her respective category, however, such provisional participation in the selection process or the declaration of her provisional result does not confer any substantive or vested right upon the petitioner to claim appointment if she is ultimately found ineligible under the applicable Rules.

#10. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the petitioner does not possess the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.), Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) or any qualification recognized by the State Government as equivalent thereto. The mere fact that the petitioner was granted admission to the Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) course by a University cannot ipso facto establish equivalence of her Bachelor's Degree with Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) for the purposes of public employment. It is argued that eligibility for admission to a higher academic course and eligibility for appointment to a public post are distinct concepts governed by different considerations.

#11. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that B.A. with Health and Physical Education cannot be equated with Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.), which is a specialized professional degree devoted entirely to Physical Education. According to the respondents, while the Bachelor's Degree relied upon by the petitioner contains Health and Physical Education merely as one of the subjects, the Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) course is specifically designed to impart professional training in the discipline CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 9 and, therefore, the two qualifications cannot be treated as interchangeable merely because they enable a candidate to pursue higher studies. It is argued that the determination of equivalence lies within the domain of the employer and the competent academic authorities and not within the jurisdiction of the recruiting agency.

#12. Learned counsel for the respondent has additionally argued that the petitioner has failed to produce any notification, rule or document issued by the competent Government or academic authority declaring B.A. with Health and Physical Education as one of the subjects to be equivalent to Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) for recruitment to the post, in question.

#13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

#14. The controversy involved in the present writ petition lies within a narrow compass. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the stipulation contained in Clause 6 of Advertisement No.31 of 2023 prescribing the essential educational qualifications for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Physical Education). The dispute essentially revolves around the interpretation of the said eligibility condition, particularly whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner, namely B.A. with Health and Physical Education as one of the subjects, can be regarded as equivalent to Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) or Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.), as contemplated CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 10 under the advertisement (Annexure P-1). The essential qualification, prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure P-1), reads as follows:-

#6. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION: The essential qualification is as per Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 dated 11.04.2012 as amended from time to time. PGT Physical Education:- (1) M.A. Physical Education or M.P.Ed. with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) or Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) or its equivalent from a recognized university; (ii) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subject. (iii) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET) / School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET). (iv) Consistent good academic record.

#15. Moreover, as per the prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University for the session 2007-08, the qualification for admission in Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.), is as follows:- Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.): (i) B.Sc. (Physical Education, Health Educaiton and Sports), B.P.E. (3 year Degree Course after 10+2) or an examination recognized as equivalent thereto with at least 50% marks in the aggregate and having English as one of the subjects at graduation level. OR (ii) D.P.Ed./B.P.Ed. one year course after graduation with atleast 50% marks in the aggregate. CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 11 OR (iii) B.A. with Health and Physical Education as one of the subjects in the 3 year Degree course with atleast 50% marks in the aggregate. OR (iv) B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. of this University or any examination equivalent thereto with at least 45% marks in the aggregate and having passed English as one of the subject. Provided further that he/she should have won 1st, 2nd, 3rd position at All India Inter-University/National Level after passing +2 examination.

#16. The record placed before this Court shows that the petitioner relies upon the fact that she was granted admission to the M.P.Ed. course by Kurukshetra University on the basis of her Bachelor’s qualification and her admission in M.P.Ed. course clearly proves equivalence. On the other hand, the respondent/Commission asserts that Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) is a specialized professional degree and cannot be equated with a Bachelor's Degree wherein Health and Physical Education is merely one of the subjects.

#17. This Court, prima facie, is satisfied with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute does not relate to the prescribed essential qualification itself but to the interpretation of whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner satisfies the requirement of the advertisement or not.

17.1. It is noteworthy that the respondent/Commission has adopted two inconsistent standards while interpreting the essential CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 12 qualifications. On the one hand, the advertisement (Annexure P-1) itself and the respondent/Commission recognize M.A. Physical Education and M.P.Ed. as equivalent qualifications for satisfying the essential requirement. On the other hand, while considering the petitioner's eligibility, the respondent has refused even to examine whether B.A. with Health and Physical Education could be treated as equivalent to B.P.Ed., and has rejected the petitioner's candidature outright on the premise that the qualifications are not equivalent. Thus, while the respondent/Commission is willing to accord equivalence at the postgraduate level, it declines to apply the same principle at the undergraduate level without any expert determination. Such a contradictory approach is arbitrary and self-contradictory, particularly when the very issue of equivalence has been held by this Hon'ble Court to require consideration by an Expert Committee rather than unilateral determination by the recruiting agency.

#18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid controversy cannot be resolved merely on the basis of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The determination of equivalence between two academic qualifications necessarily requires examination of the respective curriculum, syllabus, course content, duration of study, academic standards and professional competencies imparted by the two courses. Such an exercise falls within the exclusive domain of academicians and subject experts possessing the requisite expertise in the field. CWP Nos.25947, 25967, 26880, 26085 of 2023 & 30875 of 2024 13

#19. The question of equivalence of educational qualifications falls primarily within the domain of academic experts and this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not equipped to compare the curriculum or academic standards of B.A. with Health and Physical Education as one of the subjects and B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. Such an exercise is best left to an Expert Committee having the requisite academic expertise.

#20. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devender Bhaskar and others vs. State of Haryana and others 2022 (1) SCT51, has opined that the Courts cannot expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications, nor can they decide on matters pertaining to equivalence of academic qualifications. Speaking through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was observed: “21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (1975) 3 SCC 76, 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 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.