1 2025:CGHC:36306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7388 of 2025 1 - Rajkumari Yadav D/o Shri Ram Naresh Yadav Aged About 36 Years Presently R/o C/o Ashish Kumar Yadav, Plot No. 48, Phase Ii, Behind C.S.V.T.U. University, Vedant Nagar, Umarpoti, Utai, Durg, Dist. - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industrial, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Office - North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is claiming to include the subject of Computer Science and Mathematics as subject criteria for recruitment on the post of Assistant Director (Industry)/Manager under the advertisement dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) and prayed for the following reliefs:- VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.06 17:07:19 +0530 2 “A. That, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to include the Subjects of Computer Science and Mathematics in the minimum criteria for the selection of the Post of Assistant Director Industry/ Manager, which has been advertised in the advertisement dated 05.03.2025 (Annx. P/2), in the ends of justice. B. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to award the cost of the petition and any other alternative, additional writ in favour of the petitioner in the ends of justice.” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a B.Sc. graduate having the subject of mathematics and computer science and she completed her post graduation in mathematics from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, in the year 2010. On 05.03.2025, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for recruitment on the post of Assistant Director (Industry)/Manager, Commerce and Industry Department and the minimum educational qualification was prescribed as Engineering degree in any discipline or Postgraduate degree in Industrial Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, Physics, Chemistry or MBA/PGDM (AICTE) from any recognized institution. The petitioner made an application on 11.03.2025 under right to information act for disclosure of the information, as to why the post- graduation in mathematics subject in the minimum educational qualification for recruitment on the above said posts, has not been included, however, her application has been rejected on 01.04.2025. On 11.03.2025, she made a representation to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and requested to include the post-graduation in mathematics as minimum educational qualification for the advertised 3 post and her representation was also rejected on 16.04.2025. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the earlier advertisement dated 10.06.2020, issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the post-graduation in mathematics and computer science was included in the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger vide corrigendum dated 04.10.2021. When the Engineering degree is required in any subject and post-graduation in other subjects, then there is no reason to exclude the post-graduation in mathematics and computer science. The advertisement itself is violative of principles of natural justice and equal opportunity for recruitment, the representation of the petitioner dated 11.03.2025 has also been rejected mechanically, and therefore, the authorities may be directed to include the post-graduation in mathematics/computer science as requisite minimum qualification for appointment on the advertised posts along with other qualifications. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the post-graduation degree in Industrial Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, Physics and Chemistry is the relevant field, for which the post of Assistant Director (Industry)/ Manager, Commerce and Industry Department is advertised, which deals with the field of their subject. The mathematics may not have any barring with the advertised post. There is substantive reference in the mathematics and other subjects. He would further submit that the 4 employer/State has drawn a reasonable classification in laying down the educational qualification for the advertised posts, which is neither violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India nor discriminatory in any manner. He would also submit that the prescription of essential educational qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy and the State, as the employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualification as a condition of eligibility. A particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent, is a matter for the State to consider the matter. The petitioner has no vested right to assert that State must as a mandate include the qualification of post-graduation in mathematics, as the qualification for the post of Assistant Director (Industry)/Manager, Commerce and Industry Department in the rules and to issue advertisement accordingly. The petitioner has failed to show, as to how and in what aspects, the educational qualification, which she possessed is relevant for the aforesaid post. While prescribing the qualification for a post, the State, as an employer, may legitimately bears in mind several features like; nature of job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of the duties, functionality of a qualification and the contents of the course of studies, etc. He would also submit that the written examination has already been conducted on 12.07.2025. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making and are the essential the policy matter, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material 5 available in the petition. 6. The core grievance of the petitioner is that the post-graduation in mathematics degree should be included as one of the minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director (Industry)/ Manager, Commerce and Industry Department. From bare comparative analysis of post-graduation mathematics and post- graduation in Industrial Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, Physics and Chemistry are appears to be substantially different, which is required for the advertised posts. There appears to be no relevancy of post-graduation in mathematics with the advertised posts in view of its nature of job, the requisite aptitudes and its functionality and also in view of the course of studies. The prescription of minimum educational qualification for a particular post, is a matter of recruitment policy and it is for the employer to prescribe the minimum educational qualification bearing in mind the several features including the nature of job, the aptitudes requisite for efficient discharge of the duties, the functionality of a qualification and contents of the course of the studies, etc. the advertised posts relates to subject specialists, and therefore, an specific educational qualification is prescribed for the said post and it is for the State to prescribe the minimum qualification as a condition of eligibility. A particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent, is a matter for the State to consider. 7. In the matter of “Zahoor Ahmad Rathar v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad” 2019 (2) SCC 404, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, it is not the role of the Court to find out the equivalence. It was pointed out in the said decision that, the State, as a public employer, may well take 6 into account social perspective, that require creation of job opportunities across the social structure. In para 26 and 27 of this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK 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 KK 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 7 content of the course of 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 KK 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 KK turned.” 8. In the case of “Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others” 2019 (6) SCC 362, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 9 and 14 that:- “9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the 8 Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. 14. The view taken by the Tribunal finds approval in Deptt. Of Health & Family Welfare v. Anita Puri, observing as follows: 7. Admittedly, in the advertisement which was published calling for applications from the candidates for the posts of Dental Officer it was clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for the post is B.D.S. It was also stipulated that preference should be given for higher dental qualification. There is also nor dispute that M.D.S. is a higher qualification than the minimum qualification required for the post and Respondent I was having that degree. The question then arises is whether a person holding a M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be selected and appointed as of right by virtue of the aforesaid advertisement conferring preference for higher qualification? The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the negative. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference should be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the higher qualified candidates. But by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and appointed. In this view of the matter, the High Court in our considered opinion was wholly in error in holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like Respondent I was entitled to be selected and appointed when the Government indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification 9 person would get some preference. The said conclusion of the High Court, therefore, is wholly unsustainable and must be reversed" 9. Even otherwise, no material has been placed by the petitioner to show that the post-graduation in mathematics possessed by her is equivalent to postgraduate in Industrial Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, Physics and Chemistry. There is no mention in the advertisement that the holder of any equivalent degree in any subject are entitled to apply for the said post. The another aspect of the case that the written examination for recruitment on the advertised posts has already been conducted on 12.07.2025. 10. In view of the above, this Court do not find any merit in the petition to direct the respondents to include the postgraduate in mathematics degree should be included as one of the minimum educational qualification for the advertised post of Assistant Director (Industry)/ Manager, Commerce and Industry Department. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved