1 2025:CGHC:40309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4125 of 2017 * - Anupriya Chandraker D/o Yogeshwar Prasad Chandrakar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chicha, Post Bathena, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Post And PS Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - University Grants Commission Through Its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 4 - Pt. Ravishankar Shikla University Through The Registrar Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.1 For Respondent No. 2 For Other Respondents : : : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate None Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.i To kindly direct the respondent State Government and Public Service Commission to consider the case of the petitioner Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.30 10:46:24 +0530 2 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) as she is holding requisite qualification. 10.ii To kindly direct the respondent Public Service Commission to include the name of the petitioner in the select list and the respondent State Govt. may be directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor. 10.iii To kindly direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner as per the service law. 10.iv To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner belongs to the other backward class. The Educational qualification of the petitioner is as under:- Higher Secondary Examination (12th) 55.4% B.Sc. 58.33% M.Sc. (Bio-Science) 60.50% M.Phil. in Life Science 8.94 Credit Cleared NET in Agricultural Biotechnology from Agriculture Scientists Recruitment Board 25/07/2013 Cleared NET in Life Science from Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) 30/08/2013 Cleared NET in Life Science from Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) 11/02/2014 Cleared NET in Life Science from Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) 17/11/2014 Chhattisgarh State SET examination 2013 14/05/2014 Other Backward Category Certificate 27/05/2017 Experience Certificate from 08/10/2010 to 22/03/2013 Takshila Institute, Delhi-85 3 3. Respondent No. 2 issued an Advertisement on 10.09.2014 for the post of Assistant Professors in various streams, including the post of Assistant Professor (Botany). There were a total of 78 posts. Out of 78 posts, 33 posts were kept for the open category; 09 posts for the scheduled caste; 25 posts for the scheduled tribe, and 11 posts for the other backward class. The petitioner, being eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor (Botany), applied for the post and submitted her online application form. The date of the written examination was scheduled on 20.05.2016 and 21.05.2016. The petitioner appeared in the written examination. The Public Service Commission published the results of the aforementioned written examination on 25.05.2017. The petitioner was found eligible for the said post. The date of the interview and the verification of documents was 30.06.2017. The petitioner participated in the interview on 01.07.2017. The final merit list was published by the Public Service Commission, and the petitioner was placed at the 4th Rank, but she was found not eligible, and only one candidate, namely Varsha Lakra, was placed in the select list. The petitioner came to know that her candidature was rejected on the ground that she had a post-graduation in Bio-Science, whereas the required eligibility criteria were post graduation in the concerned subject, i.e., Botany. It is pleaded that the syllabus of M.Sc. in Bio- Science includes both subjects, Botany and Zoology, and thus, the petitioner was eligible for selection. It is also stated that a notification was issued by the University Grants Commission on 24.01.2008, wherein it has been clarified that candidates having the qualification of M.Sc. in Biological Science / Bio-Science and Ph.D in Bio-Sciences / Biological Science can be considered for appointment to the post of 4 Lecturer in any of the subjects like Botany, Zoology, Bio-Science, Micro-Biology, and Bio-Chemistry. It is also pleaded that in the advertisement issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission dated 20.08.2014, the candidates having CSIR, UGC, NET in Life Science were selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Botany). 4. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would argue that respondents No. 1 and 2 committed an error of law while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, as they are not the experts in the field to decide the aspect of equivalence. He would further submit that the Government of India, vide notification issued in the year 1979, clarified that the candidates having the degree in Master's Sciences in Life Sciences/Biological Sciences may be considered for teaching, research, or field jobs where the prescribed qualification is a Master's Degree in Botany/Zoology. He would contend that the petitioner is holding the required qualification as per the UGC Regulations, which is evident from the communication dated 24.01.2008, wherein it is stated that the candidates who completed M.Sc. in Bio-Science would be eligible to be appointed as Lecturer in Botany subject. He would also submit that Pt. Ravishankar University, Raipur, is running M.Sc. courses in Botany and Bio-Science under the Faculty of Life Science since 1977, and a Degree in M.Sc. course in Bio-Science would be equivalent to M.Sc. Botany. He would also submit that the similarly situated candidates, namely Dr. Babita Pande and Rajiya Sultaana, have been offered appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology), though they are post graduates in the Life Science subject. He would also contend that the action of the 5 respondents in not considering the name of the petitioner is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He would pray to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, appearing for the State/respondent No. 3, would submit that Clause 2 of the advertisement provides for the requisite qualification for the post applied. He would further submit that the aspirants should have possessed post post-graduation in the concerned subject for which he or she has applied. He would contend that the additional eligibility criteria are post-graduation from a recognized University with 55% and NET or SET examination, or a Ph.D Degree. He would also submit that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Botany subject, whereas the petitioner did her Master's Degree in Bio-Science and she did not have the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) and, therefore, her candidature was rejected. He would further contend that a public notice of equivalency of degrees was published by the University Grants Commission on 19.07.2016, which clearly states that the equivalence of the degrees, diplomas, and certificates are not determined by the Commission and such issues are the subject matter of Universities or employers. 6. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, would support the submissions made by Mr. Rajkumar Gupta. 7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents. 8. It is true that the issue with regard to the question of equivalence is not within the domain of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the 6 Constitution of India. The power rests exclusively with the State Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the matter of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404, while dealing with this issue, held in paragraphs 26 and 27 are as under:- “26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2010 15 SCC 596, in the subsequent decision in State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : 2015 (1) SCC (L&S) 329. The decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in 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. The decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench. 27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of 7 studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned.” 9. In the present case, the advertisement was issued for the post of Assistant Professors in various streams, including Botany and Zoology. The required qualification was post graduation in the concerned subject with 55% marks from a recognized University, along with NET or SET examination or Ph.D degree. The petitioner is a postgraduate with M.Sc. Bio-Science subject. The petitioner was permitted to participate in the written examination and, thereafter, in the interview. In the merit list, her Rank was at Serial No. 4, but she was not offered the appointment only on the ground that she did not pursue her post- graduation with the Botany subject. The petitioner has placed an order issued by the School Education Department dated 25.10.2018 wherein one Rajiya Sultaana was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology). One Dr. Babita Pande had also filed WPS No. 3441/2017, and she has been appointed against the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology subject, though her qualification is post-graduation in Bio Science. 8 10. The contentions made by learned counsels appearing for the respondents cannot be accepted on the ground that the similarly placed candidates, namely Rajiya Sultaana and Dr. Babita Pande, who are post graduates in Bio-Science subject, have been appointed on the post of Assistant Professors (Zoology) and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany), whereas the petitioner also has the qualification of M.Sc. in Bio- Science. In WPS No. 3441/2017 arising out of the same advertisement, the following observation was made:- “Order on Board” 02/05/2023 1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/CGPSC would submit that in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on 17.04.2023, the CGPSC has completed the selection proceedings and forwarded the case of the petitioner to the State for issuance of appointment order in her favour, therefore, accordingly to learned counsel for the CGPSC, the grievance raised by the petitioner so far as relates to the PSC has rendered infructuous and the grievance of the petitioner that she is declared to be eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor has lost its significant in view of the order passed by the CGPSC on 25.04.2023 (Annexure R2/4). 2. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.2/CGPSC, this petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. 3. The State is directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner expeditiously. 9 11. A copy of the appointment order of Rajiya Sultaana dated 25.10.2018 has been placed on record, and her case is almost similar to the case of Dr. Babita Pande and the petitioner. The respondents cannot apply a dual yardstick for similarly situated candidates; therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Botany subject. The entire exercise shall be completed by respondents No. 1 and 2 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti