(S/S) Manali Chaudhary and others … v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are Bachelor in Agricultural Engineering, which is 03 years course. The Commission has sought a clarification from the Government and the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand on 14.12.2023 had communicated it to the Commission that the Diploma may be of 02 or 03 years for the post of Sugar Cane Supervisor. This Communication is Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 05.11.2024 of the petitioner. It is argued that, in fact, in Uttarakhand, the only course is Diploma in Agricultural Engineering, which is for 03 years. Accordingly, the Commission was communicated by the State Government, but the Commission did not take cognizance of it and rejected the candidature of the petitioners on the wrong basis.

6. On the other hands, learned counsel for the Commission submits that, as per the Rules, the qualification is 02 years Diploma in Agriculture and unless the Rules are changed it cannot be read as 03 years Diploma in Agriculture or in Agriculture Engineering. It is submitted that in a similar controversy, this Court has already held in the case of Deeksha Dhiman (supra) that the Bachelor in Agriculture is not equivalent to the Bachelor in Technology in Agriculture Engineering. In fact, in the case of Deeksha Dhiman (supra) this Court has an occasion to deal with a similar kind of controversy and in para 12 observed as follows:- 4 “In the instant case, the essential qualification is graduation in Agriculture. The petitioners are Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering. The Expert Committee report, which comprises of two Professors from G.B. University of Agriculture and Technology has opined that the B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is not equivalent to B.Sc. Agriculture. Similarly, the controversy has already been decided by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amit Tiwari (supra). This Court has no reason to take any different view in the matter. Accordingly, no interference is warranted by this Court and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.”

7. Recruitment is to be made in accordance with the Rules. The eligibility qualification cannot be changed by the recruiting agency. It is true that in the instant case, the essential qualification inter alia is, “Must possess 02 years Diploma in Agriculture from a recognized Institution”. This is ‘THE’ qualification. It does not speak any equivalence. It is also not minimum qualification. Therefore, there was no occasion to seek any clarification by the Commission. The Commission had sought clarification and the Government has responded by its communication dated

14.12.2023 that 03 years Diploma may also be considered. Even this communication of the State Government cannot give any benefit to the petitioners. The petitioners are 03 years Diploma holders in Agricultural Engineering. The petitioners do not hold Diploma in Agriculture. They do not hold any Diploma in Agriculture for 02 years. They posses 03 years Diploma in Agricultural Engineering. In the absence of any equivalence given in the essential qualification, the petitioners cannot be said to be eligible for the position, to which, they applied. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Commission has rightly rejected the candidatures of the petitioners. There is no reason to make any 5 interference in the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

01.09.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686d f4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450 A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA