Deeksha Dhiman v. Ms. Deeksha Dhiman

Mr. Danish Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Commission. Service Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these writ petition, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.

2. In both these petitions, the challenge is made to a communication dated 22.08.2023 of the respondent Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, by which the petitioners were declared ineligible for the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector and Cane Development Inspector.

3. The respondent published an advertisement for Combined State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Services on 09.08.2021. The petitioners applied for the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector and Cane Inspector. The essential qualification for the said posts was 2 Bachelor in Agriculture from a recognized University. Both the petitioners are Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering from Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. They both appeared in preliminary examination, which was conducted on

12.12.2021. They were declared successful in the preliminary examination. Thereafter, they appeared in the main examination, which was conducted on 28.08.2022. They both were successful in the main examination. But, thereafter, the candidature of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering does not fall in the category of graduate in Agriculture. The challenge is made to that communication by which the petitioners were declared ineligible.

4. The respondent has filed its counter affidavit. According to it, for the recruitment more than one lakh candidates had applied. The applications were invited through online mode and based on the claim as made by the candidates with regard to their eligibility, they were permitted to appear in the preliminary examination. But, after main examination, during document verification, it was revealed that, in fact, the educational qualification that the petitioners possess is distinct than what was advertised. The petitioners were B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering, whereas the eligible condition was graduation in Agriculture. Therefore, according to the respondent, a three member Expert Committee was constituted, which includes two Professors from G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. The Committee gave an opinion that B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is not equivalent to the graduation in Agriculture. Thereafter, according to the respondent, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 3

5. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Petitioner Deeksha Dhiman, present in person, would submit that in one of the judgments, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that degree of B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is not equivalent to a Bachelor’s Degree in Agriculture. But, she would submit that subsequent to it, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission realized its mistake and in the subsequent advertisement, when the application for recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant (Group C) was published, in that the qualification B.Tech. Agriculture Engineering has also been included as an eligibility qualification along with B.Sc. in Agriculture. She would submit that the University Grants Commission’s list for graduate courses includes B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering along with B.Sc. in Agriculture. It is also argued by her that the essential qualification for the posts in question is B.Sc. Agriculture and it does not exclude B.Tech. from Agriculture Engineering. The petitioner in person would also argue that she had been permitted to appear in the preliminary examination, main examination and for the last four years, she has been in this examination and in the midway, her candidature should not be rejected on the ground that she is not eligible for the post. She would submit that the respondent Commission has no right to waste precious years of an aspirant in the manner it has been done.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Munabbar Ali would submit that both i.e. the B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering and B.Sc. in Agriculture are graduate courses and the petitioner has already undergone long way in the recruitment process, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner may not be rejected. He would also adopt 4 the arguments of the petitioner in person Ms. Deeksha Dhiman (in WPSS No. 41 of 2024).

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Commission would submit that the Commission had received more than one lakh online applications and based on the claim that has been made by the candidates, they were permitted to appear in the preliminary examination and the main examination; but, during the process of document verification, it was revealed that the educational qualification possessed by the petitioners is distinct than what was essentially required and advertised. He would submit that an Expert Committee was constituted comprising two Professors from G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, which gave an opinion that B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering is not equivalent to the graduation in Agriculture, based on which the petitioners’ candidature was rejected. He would also submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Amit Tiwari and 7 others v. State of U.P. and Anr. (Special Appeal defective No. 122 of 2015), has held that graduation in Agriculture is not equivalent to Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering. He would submit that the controversy is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. Referring to the subsequent advertisement made by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, learned counsel would submit that it was done pursuant to the amendment in service rules.

9. It is true that the petitioners have already undergone long way pursuant to the advertisement that was issued by the respondent. But, that does not per se give any right to the petitioner to continue the process if there is some discrepancy pointed out later. What is argued by the respondent that in view of the large number of 5 applications that were received online, the candidates were initially permitted to appear in the preliminary examination and thereafter in the main examination.

10. Similar issue has, in fact, been decided by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amit Tiwari (supra). There also the main educational qualification was graduation in Agriculture from a recognized institution or University and the appellants in that case had passed the B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering. Relying on the judgment passed in the case of Anand Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 65506 of 2010) and Vijay Kumar Kamley v. State of U.P. and another (Writ Petition No. 8736 of 2011), the Hon’ble Court held that “The controversy, as was raised before the learned Single Judge is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench. We are in respectful agreement with the view of the Division Bench that it would not be open to the Court to determine a matter of equivalence by issuing a mandamus, particularly having due regard to the fact that the Commission, after application of mind, has held otherwise.”

11. In the case of Amit Tiwari (supra), an argument was also raised on behalf of the appellants in that case that the Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) has given list of agriculture courses, which includes B.Tech. in Agriculture Engineering. But, the Hon’ble Court held that “The ICAR has indicated in a broad sense the undergraduate degrees in Agriculture. Among them are also included degrees in Forestry, Home Science, Horticulture, Fisheries Science, Food Science, Veterinary Science and Dairy Technology. If the submission of the appellants were to be accepted, all those degrees also would have be regarded as equivalent to a Bachelor’s Degree in Agriculture…”. 6

12. In the instant case, the essential qualification 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.

13. The writ petitions are dismissed. Avneet/ (Ravindra Maithani, J) 04.03.2025