Thirupathi Kodari & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

6. It is not in dispute that in the aforementioned writ petition, the advertisement dated 20.09.2016 is also the subject matter of the present petition. As per the advertisement dated 20.09.2016, the education qualification required for the post of Junior Technical Assistant is Degree in Agriculture or a Degree with Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry as one of the subjects. It was never clarified by respondent no.2 that the applicants required a degree in Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry before reply dated 26.04.2017 to the representation of petitioner no.2 therein.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the interview was not the criteria whereas in the advertisement in question, apart from the written test, the interview was also to be conducted.

8. But the fact remains that the petitioners not only qualified the written examination but also qualified the interview conducted by respondent no.2. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by counsel for respondent no.2, therefore, the Junior Technical Assistant were appointed on a different educational qualification criteria.

9. Based upon the above facts and the judgments, a similar issue came before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in case of Mamta A Ghodasara & 2 Ors. vs. State of Gujarat through Principal Secretary & 2 Ors. which was decided on 17.02.2011 in a Special Civil Petition No.526/2011 whereby it is held as under:

10. In addition to above, this court in the case of P. Ranjitha vs. University Grants Commission & Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No.2679/1989 and 4093/1989, held as under: “(3) The petitioner is a B. Com. Graduate with Economics as one of the subjects from Osmania University and has secured 81.08% marks. After having come to Delhi in pursuit of higher studies, she applied for M.Sc. in Agricultural Economics to respondent No. 2 being eligible for such a course according to the Prospectus (Information Bulletin) issued by the I.A.R.I. and also the advertisement. The minimum qualification of eligibility as laid down in the prospectus has been given in para 9 of the petition. Accordingly a candidate must satisfy the minimum eligibility of qualification of Social Science (Economics) and one of the special qualifications of the discipline of Agricultural Economics as "B. Sc. (Ag.), or Bachelor's degree (with Economics as one of the subjects)". Admittedly, the petitioner possessed a Bachelor's degree in Commerce with Economics as one of the subjects and as such she applied for admission to the course of Agricultural Economics. According to the petitioner, as per para 6.24 of the Calendar issued by I.A.R.I. the application of the petitioner for M.Sc. course was screened and she was found eligible for the said course and as such she was allotted Roll No. 101-0005 for the written entrance test scheduled to be held on August 20, 1989 at 9.30 A.M. The petitioner topped in the written entrance test and was selected by the Academic Council for admission to the said course. Consequently vide letter dated September 1, 1989, annexure 'F' to the petition, she was asked to deposit dues up to September 11, 1989 as also to comply with other formalities which she did and as such she was admitted to the course. However, the petitioner received the impugned letter dated September Ii, 1989 informing her that her admission has been kept in abeyance pending decision by the competent authority with regard to her eligibility, It fact, during the course of agreements, Mr. Jaitley, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for respondents, informed the court that the decision has been taken by the Academic Council and the petitioner has been found 'not eligible'. (6) We have carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find good deal of force in her submission. The eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus as well as in the advertisement clearly stipulates that for the purpose of admission to M.Sc. (Agricultural Economics) a candidate must possess Bachelor's degree with a minimum of 55% marks in Social Science (Economics) and for a discipline of Agricultural Economics, a Bachelor's degree with Economics as one of the subjects. It is nowhere mentioned that a Bachelor's degree in Social Science (Economics) should be a degree with Economics as principal subject or the Honours in Economics. Furthermore, it does not provide that a student who has got a degree in Social Science (Economics) or Bachelor's degree (with Economics as one of the subjects) must have mathematics compulsory paper. The eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus as well as in the advertisement only provide that candidate must possess the Bachelor's degree with Economics as one of the subjects and not a Bachelor's degree with Economics as principal subject or Honours in Economics or compulsory paper in Mathematics. Therefore, since the petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Social Science with Economics as one of subjects, in our view, she no doubt possesses the requisite qualification and she is Fully eligible to be admitted to the M.Sc. (Agricultural Economics).”

11. The word ‘with’ connotes inclusion and not exclusion whereas the word ‘in’ connotes specific enclosure. The intention of the legislatures were quite clear while drafting of the rules. The word ‘in’ had been sued in the former portion of the Rules. Had it been the intention of the legislature that the Degree should specifically be ‘in’ Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-chemistry, the said word would have been used instead of ‘with’ as has been done in case of the subject of Agriculture. Thus, respondent no.2 clearly failed to apply doctrine of literal interpretation in the instant matter. The legislature is presumed to have used the language it actually intends to use, keeping in view the legislative intent. The use of words in the rule/provisions had to be understood in its ordinary sense. It is quite evident from the reading of the rule that the legislature intended to use the word ‘with’ in inclusive manner rather than exclusive. The use of the word ‘in’ is quite specific as in the case of Degree in Agriculture. Therefore, the only clear and natural meaning that emerges is that the applicant must possess a Degree along with one of the specified subjects. Therefore, the plain and ordinary reading of the aforesaid rule makes it quite clear that the applicant must possess a Degree with Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-chemistry as one of the subjects. Hence, respondent no.2 had issued the final result without appreciating the aforesaid interpretation of the rule in question.

12. As per clause C (1)(4) of the advertisement, the applicant has to undergo test namely Reasoning, English Language, Numerical Ability, General Awareness and Professional Knowledge. The syllabus of the test under the head of ‘Professional Knowledge’ is provided in the advertisement only. It is quite evident from the same that respondent no.2 would test the educational knowledge of the applicant before calling the applicants for document verification. The petitioners in the instant case have cleared the cut off marks in the category of ‘professional knowledge’ and became eligible for the post in question, therefore, respondent no.2 had wrongly relied upon the contents of its reply dated 26.04.2017.

13. The petitioners had already undergone the test of their technical knowledge under the head of ‘Professional Knowledge’ and cleared the cut off marks. Therefore, there is not an iota of doubt that the petitioners fully comply and satisfy the basic educational qualifications.

14. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek direction thereby setting aside the recruitment process for the post of ‘Junior Technical Assistant’ and the final result dated 17.04.2017 issued by respondent no.2. The said prayer is made due to the reasons that the petitioners despite having required educational qualifications could not get selection. Since this Court is of the view that the petitioners are qualified for the post in question, therefore, instead of setting aside the recruitment process and final result dated 17.04.2017, justice would be met by giving directions to the respondents to give appointments to the petitioners.

15. In view of above discussion and the facts and circumstances of this case, I hereby allow the present petition by directing the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners for the post of ‘Junior Technical Assistant’ within two weeks from the receipt of this order, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible.

16. It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled for all benefits including seniority except the past wages.

17. The petition is allowed and disposed of, accordingly.

18. Pending application stands disposed of.

JUDGE AUGUST 13, 2019 ab