Reserved on: 18.08.2025 Delivered on: 01.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1218 of 2024 (S/S) Manali Chaudhary and others ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional, Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to Rejection List dated 03.07.2024, issued by the respondent no.4, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (“the Commission”), whereby the petitioners have been declared ineligible for the post of Sugar Cane Supervisor. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement on 08.01.2022 for recruitment of 78 posts of Sugar Cane Supervisor. It appears that process has not been taken to its logical ends. Its subsequent events are as follows:- i) On 01.11.2023, the Commission sought clarification from Sugar Cane and Sugar Commissioner, Uttarakhand with regard to educational qualification for the post of Sugar Cane Supervisor. It was sought to be clarified that 2 according to the Rules, 02 years Diploma in Agriculture is an essential qualification for Sugar Cane Supervisor, but since after High School, the Diploma in Agricultural Engineering is of 03 years, whether 03 years Diploma would be valid or not? ii) The Commissioner Sugar Cane Development and Sugar Industry, by its communication dated 25.11.2023 informed to the concerned Secretary that 03 years Diploma may also be valid for the position. iii) On 14.12.2023, the Commission issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications to fill up 78 vacancies of Sugar Cane Supervisor. The essential qualifications for the post is as follows:- “A candidate for direct recruitment to the various posts in the service: 1. Must have passed the intermediate (Agriculture) Examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttaranchal or an examination recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto: or 2. (a) Must have passed High School Examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttaranchal or an examination recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto: and (b) Must possess two years diploma in agriculture from a recognised institution.” iv) It is the case of the petitioners that they possess the requisite qualifications, therefore, they participated in the process. On 26.04.2024, the result was declared and the petitioners were called for document verification. But finally, the petitioners were held ineligible for the post on the ground that they do not posses essential qualification, as they possessed Diploma in Agricultural Engineering instead of Diploma in Agriculture. The challenge is made to it. 4. The respondent no.2/Directorate of Cane Development and Sugar Industries Uttarakhand filed its counter affidavit. According to it, the petitioner is devoid of merits. The Commission has filed its counter affidavit. According to it, Diploma in Agricultural Engineering either for 3 02 years or 03 years is not a qualification for the position of Sugar Cane Supervisor. By way of additional counter affidavit, the respondent Commission has also stated that the petitioners do not possess the essential qualification. Reference has been made to WPSS No.41 of 2024, Deeksha Dhiman vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission connected case, wherein this Court has held that graduation in Agriculture is not equivalent to Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering. 5. 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 Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.09.01 16:44:58 +05'30'