Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court The equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in exercise of power of judicial review MANU/SC/0838/2024 - (06 Aug 2024) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Shifana P.S. Vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 580)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Appellant, appeared in the written test on 10th October, 2009 and cleared the exam. The KPSC invited the Appellant vide letter dated 03rd October, 2011 for the interview requiring her to produce the equivalency certificate evidencing that B.Sc (Polymer Chemistry) is equivalent to B.Sc(Chemistry). 
The Appellant claims that the University of Calicut had issued a certificate verifying that B.Sc (Polymer Chemistry) offered by the said University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc (Chemistry) course for the purpose of employment and higher studies. 
The KPSC released the final merit list. However, the Appellant's name did not figure therein. Being aggrieved by her non-selection, the Appellant preferred original application before the learned Tribunal seeking a direction that the Respondents be commanded to include her name at the appropriate position in the final merit list according to the marks which she had obtained in the written test held by the KPSC. The original application preferred by the Appellant came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide judgment, holding that the Appellant failed to meet the qualifying criteria and thus she was ineligible for appointment to the post of High School Assistant(Physical Science).The Appellant assailed the order passed by the Tribunal in the High Court. The learned Division Bench rejected the petition filed by the Appellant. 
Indisputably, the qualifying criterion prescribed for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008 was a degree in B.Sc (Chemistry). Admittedly, the Appellant does not hold such a degree. It is the case of the Appellant that B.Sc (Polymer Chemistry) degree acquired by her is required to be treated as equivalent to a degree in B.Sc (Chemistry). However, the said argument does not hold water and is misconceived. 
This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors. has held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. 
In Unnikrishnan C.V. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., a three Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Anr., held 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 specific order or resolution, duly published. 
The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the Appellant that the University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10th October, 2011 verifying that B.Sc (Polymer Chemistry) course of the said University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc (Chemistry) course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this Court in the case of Unnikrishnan C.V. In view of the settled principles of law flowing from the above precedents, Appellant was not qualified for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008.There is no justifiable reason so as to interfere with the judgment rendered by the High Court. Appeal dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Appointment, Advertisement, Eligibility</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>