2019 (8) TMI 1916 - SC - Indian Laws

Recruitment for the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-1) - Whether the courts would be justified in undertaking the exercise of providing equivalence to another qualification so as to declare it to be equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the recruitment Notification by taking note of the extraneous factors though such equivalence of qualification is not declared by the employer who makes the recruitment? - HELD THAT - The private Respondents herein had applied in response to the said notification on 24.11.2014 and despite the private Respondent in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 16567/2016 had admittedly possessed the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) had indicated the qualification as Agro-Forestry in the application. Be that as it may the process of selection was undertaken and appointment letter was issued to the private Respondents in the two appeals on 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively. In the letter of appointment it was specifically mentioned that the appointment is subject to producing the original documents which included the proof regarding qualification. It is no doubt true that on 18.11.2015 an Office Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture Co-operation and Farmers Welfare (Policy Division) whereby on taking note that no 4-year Bachelor Program in Agro-Forestry is available in the country and since Agro-Forestry is covered comprehensively as a subject in the ICAR approved syllabus for B.Sc. (Forestry) it was suggested that it will be appropriate that B.Sc. (Forestry) graduation be considered for the position of Agricultural Field Officer in Banks. Accordingly a corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 was issued by IBPS. It is not in dispute that based on such decision taken for the recruitment made subsequently B.Sc. (Forestry) was included as the qualification for recruitment of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I). The Notification depicting the qualification required as Degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was issued on 17.11.2014 and the process of selection had come to an end when the private Respondents herein were issued the appointment letters dated 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively. Admittedly as on such date the Notification required the candidates possessing B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) but the private Respondents were graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not qualified to respond. The change was made subsequent thereto by the general corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) which would be effective from that day by providing opportunity to all those holding that qualification. Therefore in such cases the change of qualification whereby the qualification of the private Respondents gets included subsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone when several others who could have applied were prevented from doing so. Though in the instant facts presently the qualification possessed by the private Respondents is decided to be included for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer as on the date of the recruitment Notification the same was not included therein which cannot be substituted by the Court with retrospective effect for the reasons stated. Therefore in the said circumstance in the present facts the High Court was not justified in its conclusion - the Appellant Bank of India to provide appointment to Smt. Aarya K. Babu as Agricultural Field Officer or such other equivalent post if the vacancy exists as on today or in the vacancy that would arise in future. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Equivalence of educational qualifications for recruitment.
2. Retrospective application of new qualifications during an ongoing recruitment process.
3. Authority of courts to interpret or alter qualifications specified in recruitment notifications.
4. Impact of corrigendum on recruitment processes and fairness to all potential candidates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Equivalence of Educational Qualifications for Recruitment:

The core issue in this judgment revolves around whether the courts can declare a qualification as equivalent to the one prescribed in a recruitment notification. The recruitment notification dated 17.11.2014 required a 4-year degree in "Agro-Forestry" for the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-1). The private respondents, possessing a degree in "Forestry," were initially selected but later disqualified for not meeting the specified qualifications. The High Court of Kerala considered the degree in "Forestry" as equivalent, based on the lack of a specific "Agro-Forestry" program in the country and information from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) that included "Forestry" under the definition of "Agriculture." However, the Supreme Court held that it is not within the court's purview to assume or include qualifications not specified by the employer, emphasizing that equivalence is a technical question best determined by experts.

2. Retrospective Application of New Qualifications During an Ongoing Recruitment Process:

The judgment also addresses whether a new qualification, recognized after the issuance of a recruitment notification, can be applied retrospectively. A corrigendum issued on 16.01.2016 included B.Sc. (Forestry) as a qualification for the post. The Supreme Court ruled that changes in qualifications cannot benefit only those who are already part of the process, as it would disadvantage others who did not apply due to the original qualifications specified. The court emphasized that any change in qualification criteria must be followed by a corrigendum inviting applications from all eligible candidates, ensuring fairness in the selection process.

3. Authority of Courts to Interpret or Alter Qualifications Specified in Recruitment Notifications:

The court underscored that it is not the judiciary's role to alter or interpret qualifications specified in recruitment notifications. The decision referenced the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University, reiterating that selection criteria should not be changed midstream, as it could lead to unfairness and potential exclusion of qualified candidates. The judgment further cited Mohammad Shujat Ali and Ors. v. Union of India, which established that equivalence of qualifications is a technical matter beyond the court's expertise.

4. Impact of Corrigendum on Recruitment Processes and Fairness to All Potential Candidates:

The issuance of a corrigendum after the recruitment process had commenced was a significant point of contention. The Supreme Court highlighted that such changes should not apply retrospectively to benefit a select few, as it would be unjust to those who did not apply due to the initial qualifications. The court maintained that any post-notification changes should be accompanied by a new opportunity for all eligible candidates to apply, ensuring a level playing field.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the qualifications specified in recruitment notifications and ensuring fairness in the recruitment process. The court, however, exercised its discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide relief to one of the respondents due to unique personal circumstances, clarifying that this decision should not set a precedent.