ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KOCHI & ORS. versus AARYA K. BABU & ANR. on 8 August 2019

[2019] 11 S.C.R. 627

ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE,KOCHI & ORS.

v.

AARYA K. BABU & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 6206 of 2019)

AUGUST 08, 2019

[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Service Law – Recruitment – Change in qualification/criteriaafter notification for recruitment – Respondent No.2- IBPS issuednotification for post of Agricultural Field Officer (scale-1) –Requirement in the notification was of graduates possessing degreein ‘Agro-Forestry’ – Process of selection was undertaken and theprivate respondents were provisionally selected – However, afterverification of their documents, their selection was cancelled onthe ground that private respondents did not possess the qualificationprescribed in the notification – As the private respondents haddegree in ‘Forestry’ – Writ petitions – High Court held thatqualification of the private respondents was appropriate – Thatapart, error was taken note by the Ministry of Agriculture and FarmsWelfare that no 4-year Bachelor program in Agro-Forestry wasavailable in the Country and it was suggested that B.Sc(Forestry)graduation be considered for the position of Agricultural FieldOfficer – Accordingly, a corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 was issued– In that background, the termination orders of the privaterespondents were set aside by the High Court – On appeal, held: Ifthere is any change in qualification/criteria after the notification isissued but before the completion of the selection process and theemployer/recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will beincumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporatingthe changes to the notification and invite applications from thosequalified as per the changed criteria and consider the same alongwith the applications received in response to the initial notification– In the instant case, the private respondents were issued appointmentletters on 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively, the change wasmade subsequent thereto by the general corrigendum dated16.01.2016 by including the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry), which

627

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awould be effective from that day by providing opportunity to allthose holding that qualification – Therefore, in such case the changeof qualification whereby the qualification of the private respondentsgets included subsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone whenseveral others who could have applied were prevented from doingso – In the said circumstance, the orders of the High Court set aside.B

Service Law – Recruitment – Power of the Court in providingequivalence of qualification – Held: The question in regard toequivalence of educational qualifications is a technical questionbased on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academicstandards and practical attainments of such qualifications and whereCthe decision of the Government is based on the recommendation ofan expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill andexpertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court,uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insightsnecessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would notDlightly disturb the decision of the Government.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. If the decision of the Supreme Court in the caseof Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. is keptin perspective it is clear that while examining the correctness ofEthe action of the employer what would be sacrosanct will be thequalification criteria published in the Notification, since if anychange made to the qualification criteria midstream is acceptedby the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it, withoutmaking it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount toFcausing injustice to the others who possess such qualificationbut had not applied being honest to themselves as knowinglythey did not possess the qualification sought for in the Notificationthough they otherwise held another degree. Therefore, if thereis any change in qualification/criteria after the notification is issuedbut before the completion of the selection process and theGemployer/recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will beincumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporatingthe changes to the notification and invite applications from thosequalified as per the changed criteria and consider the same alongwith the applications received in response to the initial H

notification. The same principle will hold good when aconsideration is made by the Court. [Para 14][637-C-F]

2. If in that background the instant facts are taken note, itwould disclose that the Notification depicting the qualificationrequired as Degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was issued on17.11.2014 and the process of selection had come to an end whenthe private respondents herein were issued the appointmentletters dated 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively. Admittedlyas on such date the Notification required the candidatespossessing B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) but the private respondentswere graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not qualifiedto respond. The change was made subsequent thereto by thegeneral corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including thequalification of B.Sc. (Forestry), which would be effective fromthat day by providing opportunity to all those holding thatqualification. Therefore, in such cases the change of qualificationwhereby the qualification of the private respondents gets includedsubsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone when severalothers who could have applied were prevented from doingso.[Para 15][637-G-H; 638-A-B]

3. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalencerelating to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issuehas been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in thedecision relied upon by the appellants in the case of MohammadShujat Ali & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, wherein it is held thatthe question in regard to equivalence of educational qualificationsis a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluationof the relevant academic standards and practical attainments ofsuch qualifications and where the decision of the Government isbased on the recommendation of an expert body which possessesthe requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequatelydischarging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevantdata and unaided by the technical insights necessary for thepurpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturbthe decision of the Government. [Para 16][638-B-D]

4. In that backdrop, though in the instant facts presentlythe qualification possessed by the private respondents is decided A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato be included for the purpose of recruitment to the post ofAgricultural Field Officer, as on the date of the recruitmentNotification the same was not included therein, which cannot besubstituted by the Court with retrospective effect for the reasonsstated above. Therefore, in the said circumstance, in the presentfacts, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion. [Para 17]B[638-E-F]

Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.(1975) 3 SCC 76 : [1975] 1 SCR 449 – followed.Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University &Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 555 : [2009] 2 SCR 907 – reliedCon.Kishor Deoramji Gahane v. The Institute of BankingPersonnel Selection & Others. (judgment dated09.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicatureat Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in W.P.(C)No.4823/2015) – referred to.D

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6206Eof 2019

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2016 of the HighCourt of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 313 of 2016.

With

FCivil Appeal No. 6207 of 2019.

A. B. Dial, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Ms. SakshiGaur, Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Sorabh Dahiya, Vibhu Sharma, AnmolMehta (for M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co.), Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Ananya DattaMajumdar, Kaleeswaram Raj, Ms. Romsha Raj, Nishe Rajen Shonker,Suvidutt M.S., Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora, Ms. Ritu Arora, Anuvrat Sharma,GAdvs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. In the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.16567/2016 theHappellant-Bank of India is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.05.2016 passed in W.A.No.313/2016. The said appeal before theHigh Court of Kerala at Ernakulam was filed against the order passed inWP(C) No.39083/2015 whereby the learned Single Judge of that HighCourt had allowed the writ petition by an order dated 20.01.2016. In theappeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24764/2016 the appellant-SyndicateBank Ltd. is assailing the order dated 24.05.2016 passed in Writ AppealNo.404/2016, wherebythe Division Bench of the High Court of Keralahad upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge inWP(C)No.17403/2015 dated 20.12.2016.

3. Though in these two appeals the parties are different, keepingin view the question arising for consideration is the same in both theseappeals and since the High Court has disposed of the appeals throughthe common order, these two appeals are taken up, heard together anddisposed of by this common order. For the purpose of narration of facts,the case as pleaded in SLP(C) No.16567/2016 is taken note. In respectof the recruitment to be made in the Banking Sector the respondentNo.2 herein, an institute of Indian Banking Personnel Selection (“IBPS”for short) undertakes the process of recruitment by issue of appropriateNotification in that regard.

4. In the instant fact situation, the Notification dated 17.11.2014was issued calling for applications from interested candidates for thedifferent posts that were advertised therein. The consideration hereinrelates to the recruitment for the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-1). The private respondents in both these appeals are applicants for thesaid post. The process of selection was undertaken and the privaterespondents in both these appeals were provisionally selected, subject toverification of their documents and were accordingly allotted by the IBPSto the respective appellant Banks herein. However, the selection of boththe private respondents was cancelled on the ground that the privaterespondents herein did not possess the qualification prescribed in thenotification for appointment. It is in that regard the private respondentsclaiming to be aggrieved by such action were before the learned SingleJudge of the Kerala High Court assailing the termination orders in therespective writ petitions as taken note above.

5. The learned Single Judge on taking note that though therequirement in the Notification was of graduates possessing Degree in“Agro-Forestry” had taken into consideration that the private respondentsherein had secured the 4-year Degree in “Forestry” and held the same AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato be sufficient. In that regard the learned Single Judge had taken notethat there is no 4-year Degree Programme being offered in this countryfor”Agro-Forestry” and in that background on referring to the informationfurnished by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (“ICAR” forshort) which had been relied upon by the private respondents herein,had taken into consideration that as per the said institution, the definitionBof Agriculture included “Forestry”. In that background finding the sameto be an appropriate qualification had favourably considered the case ofthe private respondents herein. That apart it was also taken note thatthe Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare as also the Ministry ofFinance have subsequently taken note of the error that there is no 4-Cyear Course in “Agro-Forestry” in the country and that “Agro-Forestry”is covered comprehensively as the subject in ICAR approved syllabusfor B.Sc. in “Forestry” and that it can be considered as the qualificationfor the post of Agricultural Field Officer in Banks. In that background,taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter the termination orders issued to the private respondents in withdrawing the offer ofDappointment were set aside and the appellants herein were directed totake back the private respondents into service.

6. The appellants herein claiming to be aggrieved by the saiddecision of the learned Singlewere before the Division Bench in theappeals as referred to above. The Division Bench also had taken note ofEthese aspects and the consideration made by the learned Single Judge inthis regard was upheld. In the course of the proceedings in the WritAppeal the appellants herein had relied upon the judgment dated09.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, NagpurBench at Nagpur in W.P.(C) No.4823/2015 titled as KishorFDeoramjiGahane vs. The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection& Others. The said judgment was cited since the very issue relating toqualification of B.Sc. in”Agro-Forestry”had arisen for consideration andin that background it was also taken note therein that a corrigendumdated 16.01.2016 had been issued whereby the 4 year B.Sc. Degree in Forestry, Agricultural Biotechnology, Food Science and AgriculturalGBusiness Management were also included as the recognised educationalqualification for appointment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer(Scale-1). In that circumstance, in that case it was noticed that theadvertisement was of the year 2015 while the corrigendum was issuedon 16.01.2016 and in that view the Division Bench of the Nagpur BenchH

had declined the relief to the petitioner therein by holding that thequalification depicted in the notification will be relevant. The DivisionBench of the Kerala High Court in the present case had however,respectfully disagreed with the said view and proceeded to uphold theorder passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal filed bythe appellants herein. It is in that light the appellants are before thisCourt.

7. In the above background we have heard Shri A.B. Dial, learnedsenior counsel in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24764/2016, ShriRajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing in the appeal arising out of theSLP© No.16567/2016 as also Shri Kaleeswaram Raj and Shri JagatArora respective learned counsel for the respondents. We have alsoperused the appeal papers including the impugned judgmentspassed bythe High Court.

8. Though extensive arguments were advanced the issue lies in avery narrow compass. The short question for consideration is as towhether the courts would be justified in undertaking the exercise ofproviding equivalence to another qualification so as to declare it to beequivalent to the qualification prescribed in the recruitment Notificationby taking note of the extraneous factors though such equivalence ofqualificationis not declared by the employer who makes the recruitment.The second aspect would be as to whether any particular educationalqualification made eligible subsequent to issue of recruitment Notificationcan be considered retrospectively in respect of the recruitment processwhich has commenced prior to such an additional educationalqualificationbeing treated as eligible and the process of recruitment inrespect of such notification is already concluded. In that background anexamination of these aspects is necessary in the instant case.

9. The qualification prescribed for the post of Agricultural FieldOfficer (Scale-1) as issued under the Notification dated 17.11.2014 whichis the subject matter herein, is as hereunder:

“4 year Degree (graduation) inAgriculture/ Horticulture/ AnimalHusbandry /Veterinary Science/ Dairy Science / Agri Engineering/Fishery Science/Pisciculture/Agri Marketing & Co-operation/Co-operation & Banking/Agro-Forestry.”

(emphasis supplied)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A10. The private respondents herein had applied in response to thesaid notification, on 24.11.2014 and despite the private respondent in theappeal arising out of SLP(C) No.16567/2016 had admittedly possessedthe qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) had indicated the qualification asAgro-Forestry in the application. Be that as it may, the process of selectionwas undertaken and appointment letter was issued to the privateBrespondents in the two appeals, on 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015respectively. In the letter of appointment, it was specifically mentionedthat the appointment is subject to producing the original documents whichincluded the proof regarding qualification. Needless to mention that theproof regarding qualification refers to the qualification as depicted in theCnotification dated 17.11.2014. However, since it was subsequently noticedthat she did not possess the degree in B.Sc.(Agro-Forestry), she wasissued a show cause notice dated 03.11.2015 and she was terminatedthrough the order dated 10.12.2015. A similar course was adopted in sofar as the other private respondent as well. It is no doubt true that on18.11.2015 anOffice Memorandum was issued by the Ministry ofDAgriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare (Policy Division), whereby on takingnote that no 4-year Bachelor Program in Agro-Forestry is available inthe country and since Agro-Forestry is covered comprehensively as asubject in the ICARapproved syllabus for B.Sc.(Forestry),it wasEsuggested thatit will be appropriate that B.Sc. (Forestry) graduation beconsidered for the position of Agricultural Field Officer inBanks.Accordingly, a corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 was issued by IBPS.It is not in dispute that based on such decision taken,for the recruitmentmade subsequently, B.Sc. (Forestry) was included as the qualificationfor recruitment of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I).F

11. The issue however is, when the said qualification was notdepicted in the relevant recruitment Notification which is the subjectmatter and in that circumstance if recruitment has been wrongly madeof the persons who did not possess the qualification which was notifiedbut had still applied and the appointment made on that basis is sustained,Gwould it not beto the disadvantage of other persons who had possessedthe same qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) degree but had not appliedsince the Notification did not depict the said qualification but had indicatedsome other qualification. In that regard, at the outset it is necessary totake note that the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, H

Nagpur Bench in the case of Kishor DeoramjiGahane (supra) reliedupon by the appellants herein before the High Court in fact had addressedthis issue wherein it was held that the corrigendum issued subsequent tothe advertisement would not be beneficial,since the petitioner therein didnot possess the qualification notified in recruitment Notification.

12. The learned counsel for the private respondents howevercontended that the High Court was justified in taking note that the courseforDegree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was not being imparted in the countryand in such event the very Notification seeking for candidates possessing4-year Degree in B.Sc.(Agro-Forestry) was erroneous and as such theDegree in B.Sc. (Forestry)should be considered. The learned counselseeks to rely upon the Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations,1979 to contend that in Clause-16.9 thereof a reference is made to “SpecialOfficers” wherein it is indicated that one of the category therein being“Agriculture Officers”, the qualification thereunder indicated is Degreein Agriculture and/or allied subjects and recruited/promoted/convertedas such. In that view the learned counsel contends that as per theinformation furnished by ICAR dated 01.04.2015 the definition of“Agriculture” would include “Forestry” and in such event it will have tobe construed that even though the Notification seeks for candidatespossessing Degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) it would include B.Sc.(Forestry) which is an allied subject of Agriculture.

13. Though we have taken note of the said contention we areunable to accept the same. We are of such opinion in view of the well-established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume andthereby include certain qualifications which have not been included inthe Notification by the employer. Further the rules as referred to by thelearned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotionof officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in theadvertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under therecruitment rules, it would have been open for the candidate concernedto challenge the Notification alleging denial of opportunity. On the otherhand, having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in theNotification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that thequalification possessed by such candidate is equivalent and thereby seekconsideration for appointment nor will it even be open for the employerto change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selectionprocess or accept any qualification other than the one notified since it A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awould amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess thequalification but had not applied as it was not notified.

14. In fact, this view is fortified by the decision of this Court in thecase of Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University &Ors.(2009) 4 SCC 555 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Inthe said decision it is held as hereunder:

B

24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also theUniversity changed the rule in the midstream which was notpermissible. The University can always have a person as aLecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, butthe same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself,so that there is no confusion and all persons who could beintending candidates, should know as to what is the subjectwhich the person is required to teach and what essentialqualification the person must possess to be suitable for makingapplication for filling up the said post.

C

D

25. We are not disputing the fact that in the matter of selectionof candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee should befinal, but at the same time, the Selection Committee cannot actarbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in theselection process during its midstream. Merajuddin Ahmad didnot possess a degree in Pure Chemistry and therefore, it wasrightly held by the High Court that he did not possess theminimum qualification required for filling up the post of Lecturerin Chemistry, for Pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry aretwo different subjects.

E

F

26. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the postof Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by aperson belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry whenthe same having been specifically not mentioned in theadvertisement that a Master’s degree-holder in the said subjectwould also be suitable for being considered. There could havebeen intending candidates who would have applied for becomingcandidate as against the said advertised post, had they knownand were informed through advertisement that IndustrialChemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the saidpost.

G

H

27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection,which is midway could not have changed the essentialqualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stageheld that a Master’s degree-holder in Industrial Chemistry wouldbe better suited for manning the said post without there beingany specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact thatthe University is now manning the said post by having a personfrom the discipline of Pure Chemistry also leads to theconclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertisedwas meant to be filled up by a person belonging to PureChemistry stream.

If the above decision is kept in perspective it is clear that whileexamining the correctness of the action of the employer what would besacrosanct will be the qualification criteria published in the Notification,since if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream isaccepted by the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it,without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount tocausing injustice to the others who possess such qualification but hadnot applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possessthe qualification sought for in the Notification though they otherwiseheld another degree. Therefore, if there is any change in qualification /criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of theselection process and the employer / recruiting agency seeks to adoptthe change it will be incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendumincorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications fromthose qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same alongwith the applications received in response to the initial notification. Thesame principle will hold good when a consideration is made by the Court.

15. If in that background the instant facts are taken note, it woulddisclose that the Notification depicting the qualification required as Degreein B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was issued on 17.11.2014 and the process ofselection had come to an end when the private respondents herein wereissued the appointment letters dated 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015respectively. Admittedly as on such date the Notification required thecandidates possessing B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) but the private respondentswere graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not qualified torespond.The change was made subsequent thereto by thegeneralcorrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including the qualification of B.Sc.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(Forestry), which would be effective from that day by providingopportunity to all those holding that qualification. Therefore, in suchcases the change of qualification whereby the qualification of the privaterespondents gets included subsequently cannot enure to their benefitalone when several others who could have applied were prevented fromdoing so.B

16. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence relatingto educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issue has been settledby the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by thelearned counsel for the appellants in the case of Mohammad ShujatAli &Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors, (1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it isCheld that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualificationsis a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of therelevant academic standards and practical attainments of suchqualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on therecommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisiteDknowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function,the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technicalinsightsnecessary for the purpose of determiningequivalence, would notlightly disturb the decision of the Government.

17. In that backdrop, though in the instant facts presently theEqualification possessed by the private respondents is decided to be includedfor the purpose of recruitment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer,as on the date of the recruitment Notification the same was not includedtherein, which cannot be substituted by the Court with retrospectiveeffect for the reasons stated above. Therefore, in the said circumstance,in the present facts, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion.FWe, however, make it clear that though we have referred to the legalposition and applied the same to the case of the parties who are beforeus, if in the case of similar recruitment, the employers themselves havepermitted the equivalence and have continued such of those officersrecruited, this decision shall not be applied to initiate action against suchGofficers at this distant point of time. Subject to the above, the orderspassed by the High Court of Kerala which are impugned herein are setaside.

18. Having arrived at the above conclusion we also take note ofthe submission of the learned counsel for the private respondent in theHappeal arising out of SLP© No.16567/2016 namely Smt. Aarya K.

Babuthat she is placed in a very difficult circumstances subsequent tothe discharge from service which is also due to certain set back in herpersonal life. Though we do not wish to articulate the actual fact situationnarrated we have no reason to disbelieve the same, hence, we find itappropriate that in her case it is necessary to exercise our discretionunder Article 142 of the Constitution to serve the ends of justice and docomplete justice without prejudicing either of the parties. In that view,we direct the appellant Bank of India to provide appointment to Smt.Aarya K. Babu as Agricultural Field Officer or such other equivalentpost if the vacancy exists as on today or in the vacancy that would arisein future. In that regard it is made clear that the same will be consideredas afresh appointment from the date of appointment and no previousbenefit can be claimed by her. Further, it is made clear that this directionis issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and thesame shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.

19. Subject to the above observations, both the appeals are allowedwith no order as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H