Court Interference in Deciding Requisite Qualification for Recruitment Imprudent: MP HC
05.07.2021 | Education News | EduLegaL | www.edulegal.org | email@example.com
7th June 2021, Madhya Pradesh Court in In Piyush Shukla v. State of M.P. and Ors — W.P. No. 5666/2021 refused to interfere in qualification criteria set by Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MP PSC) for appointment of Medical Officer (Medical and Non-Medical).
A Single Judge bench of Honorable S.A. Dharmadhikari opined:
“It is well settled that in the field of education, a court of law cannot act as an expert normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses the requisite qualification, should be left to the educational institutions”
The advertisement posted by the respondents stated that the candidate must hold an MBBS for the post of Medical Officer (Medical) and M.Sc. in Zoology, Botany, Chemistry, Anthropology, or Forensic Medicines for Medical Officer (Non-Medical). The petitioner had passed M.Sc. (Molecular & Human Genetics) and contended that it has a syllabus similar to that of zoology. He relied upon an earlier notification issued by the respondent for the post of Assistant Professor, which was later amended to include the allied subject of Zoology Genetic Engineering in the Zoology subject. Petitioner had sought similar amendments in the present advertisement.
Respondents contended that petitioner has passed M.Sc. with Tools, Techniques, and Bio-Statistics, Bio-Informatics whereas, Zoology is a subsidiary or optional subject. As it was necessary to study Zoology as principal/main subject, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held qualified in the above subjects. Respondent also placed reliance on Bihar Public Service Commission v. Kamini as reported in (2007) 5 SCC 519, where the Supreme Court ruled that Courts ordinarily would not interfere with the terms and conditions of the advertisement as regards qualification and eligibility of candidates.
The Court concurred with the respondents and observed that the advertisement was explicitly clear regarding the qualification and petitioner does not possess the same qualifications. In as far as the grounds of amended advertisement of Assistant Professor was raised by the petitioner, the court held:
“Even if some ineligible candidates were wrongly treated as eligible, therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that he also must be treated eligible though he is ineligible. In considered opinion of this Court, such an action cannot be given rise to equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
In conclusion, the petition was dismissed by the court whereas the petitioner was at liberty to approach the competent authority for making his representation if so advised.
Vaibhav Karadale | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL