PARVAIZ AHMAD PARRY Vs. STATE OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 13368 of 2015, Judgment Date: Nov 06, 2015
In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the
major subjects and has also done Masters in the Forestry, i.e.,
M.Sc.(Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the
candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess
the required qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring
higher qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was sufficient
to hold that the appellant had possessed the prescribed qualification.
REPORTABLE [
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 13368 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 26131/2013)
Parvaiz Ahmad Parry …..….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Jammu & Kashmir
& Ors. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
10.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in L.P.A.
No. 102 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
appeal filed by the appellant herein while upholding the judgment dated
12.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in SWP No.
2699 of 2010.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, which lie
in a narrow compass, few relevant facts need mention infra.
4. The appellant completed B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the major
subjects from Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in the year 2001. Thereafter
he also completed his M.Sc.(Forestry) from the same University in the year
2003.
5. The appellant also passed the National Eligibility Test (NET) in
Forestry from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in the year
2005-2006.
6. The J & K Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1970 (in short
‘the Rules’) lays down the eligibility qualifications for the post of Range
Officer Grade-I (Forest) which is “B.Sc. Forestry or its equivalent from
any University recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research”.
7. The Indian Council of Forest Research & Education (in short “ICFRE”)
issued Notification dated 15.01.1999 clarifying that the syllabus of State
Forest Service (in short ‘SFS’) Colleges was very much akin to that of
Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy (in Short “IGNFA”), therefore,
considering the high standard of training and education in the SFS
Colleges, the ICFRE resolved that “SFS College Diploma to be treated as
equivalent to M.Sc.(Forestry).”
8. By letter dated 15.02.2007, the Forest Research Institute (in short
‘FRI’) informed the Department of Forest, J & K Government, that the SFS
Colleges Diploma be treated as equivalent to M.Sc. (Forestry). In turn, on
12.03.2007, the Forest Department informed the same to the J.K. Public
Service Commission (JKPSC) endorsing the opinion of the FRI dated
15.02.2007.
9. By Notification dated 20.07.2007, the JKPSC advertised 23 posts of J
& K Forest Service Range Officers Grade-I (Forest) and invited applications
from the eligible candidates. The eligibility qualification mentioned in
the Notification was “B.Sc.(Forestry) or equivalent from any University
recognized by the ICAR”. The appointment to the post was to be made on the
basis of written test, viva-voce test, walking test and medical test. The
appellant applied for the said post.
10. By Notification dated 08.09.2010, the JKPSC declared the appellant as
an ineligible candidate for appointment to the post of Range Officer Grade-
I(Forest) on the ground that he does not possess the prescribed
qualification.
11. On 07.10.2010, the appellant sent a representation to the JKPSC to re-
consider his case as according to him, he possessed the qualification
prescribed for the post. On 11.10.2010, the appellant sent another
representation to the JKPSC requesting it to allow him to participate in
the selection. Since no action was taken on the representation, the
appellant filed a petition being SWP No. 2699 of 2010 before the High Court
for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the said notification dated
08.09.2010 and for further direction to the JKPSC to allow him to
participate in the selection process.
12. The learned Single Judge, by interim order dated 24.11.2010, allowed
the appellant to appear in the written examination subject to the outcome
of the writ petition. Accordingly, the appellant appeared in the
examination.
13. On 22.02.2011, the result of the written examination was produced in
the Court by the JKPSC, which declared the appellant as successful. The
learned Single Judge permitted the appellant to appear in the interview.
14. On 22.07.2011, the JKPSC published a list of selected candidates who
were recommended for appointment on the basis of merit but the list did not
reflect the name of the appellant.
15. By order dated 12.11.2012, the learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition.
16. Against by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal being
L.P.A. No. 102 of 2012 before the High Court. Pending disposal of the
appeal, the Division Bench, by interim order dated 22.11.2012, directed
that one post of Range Officer Grade-I (Forest) be reserved for the
appellant. However, by order dated 10.05.2013, the Division Bench
dismissed the appeal.
17. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal
by way of special leave before this Court.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
19. Learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the legality and
correctness of the impugned judgment made two submissions. In the first
place, he contended that the writ court and the appellate court erred in
dismissing the appellant's writ petition and the appeal. It was his
submission that the reasoning of the writ court, which was simply upheld by
the appellate Court without examining the real issue, is wholly perverse
and being unsustainable in law deserves to be set aside. In the second
place, learned counsel contended that when admittedly the appellant was
having B.Sc. degree in Forestry as one of the major subjects and further he
had also obtained Masters degree in Forestry, M.Sc.(Forestry), and later
acquired higher qualification of Masters degree, i.e., M.Sc. in Natural
Resources and Environment from the University of Michigan, USA, he should
have been held as an eligible candidate for the post of J & K Forest
Service Range Officers Grade-I for which he had applied pursuant to the
advertisement.
20. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned
judgment and contended that no case is made out to interfere in the
impugned order and hence the appeal should be dismissed.
21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record of the case, we find force in the submissions urged by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
22. As would be clear from the undisputed facts mentioned above, the
minimum qualification prescribed for applying to the post of J & K Forest
Service Range Officers Grade-I was "B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any
University recognized by ICAR". It is not disputed that the appellant was
to his credit a qualification of B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the major
subjects and Masters in Forestry, i.e. M.Sc.(Forestry), on the date when he
applied for the post in question, which satisfied the eligibility criteria
so far as the qualification was concerned.
23. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court that in order to
be an eligible candidate, the appellant should have done B.Sc. in Forestry
and since he had not done so, he was not considered as an eligible
candidate. This reasoning, in our view, does not stand to any logic and is,
therefore, not acceptable insofar as the facts of this case are concerned.
24. In our considered view, firstly, if there was any ambiguity or
vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement,
then it should have been clarified by the authority concerned in the
advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, then benefit
should have been given to the candidate rather than to the respondents.
Thirdly, even assuming that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet
we find that the appellant was admittedly having B.Sc. degree with Forestry
as one of the major subjects in his graduation and further he was also
having Masters degree in Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry). In the light of
these facts, we are of the view that the appellant was possessed of the
prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and his
application could not have been rejected treating him to be an ineligible
candidate for not possessing prescribed qualification.
25. In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the
major subjects and has also done Masters in the Forestry, i.e.,
M.Sc.(Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the
candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess
the required qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring
higher qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was sufficient
to hold that the appellant had possessed the prescribed qualification. It
was coupled with the fact that Forestry was one of the appellant’s major
subjects in graduation, due to which he was able to do his Masters in
Forestry.
26. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that if the appellant
is held eligible on the basis of his qualification, the candidates alike
him would be deprived of applying for the said post. The argument, in our
view, has no merit.
27. In the first place, no such candidate or/and applied for the post and
secondly, the argument being wholly hypothical in nature cannot be
accepted.
28. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are not in agreement with
the view taken by the High Court when it was held that the appellant did
not possess the prescribed qualification. This finding, as held above, is
unsustainable and thus cannot be upheld. The appeal thus succeeds and is
accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the
writ petition filed by the appellant succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
Since the appellant has already cleared the written examination and had
appeared in the interview and further one post was directed to be kept
reserved for him by the orders of the High Court in the event, the
appellant succeeds in this litigation, we consider it appropriate to direct
the respondents to issue necessary appointment order in favour of the
appellant for the said post after ensuring compliance of the procedural
formalities within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment.
……...................................J.
[J. CHELAMESWAR]
..……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
November 06, 2015.
-----------------------
13