FAKRUDIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite qualification advertised for the post. The petitioner has participated in the selection having been found eligible. It is appropriate to mention that Haryana State Selection Commission respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement No. 5/2004. According to the qualification Diploma in Engineering (Civil) was prescribed as educational qualification, which was required to be obtained from institutes in Haryana duly recognized by the respondents or any other recognized institute. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 have appeared for the Viva Voce test. On 7.11.2004, the result was declared but the petitioner failed to make a grade. It has been alleged that respondent No. 4 does not have requisite qualification of Diploma in Junior Engineer (Civil) as he has qualified the diploma from Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi, which is not recognized by the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana. Although certain averments have been made by imputing allegations of biased in selection at the instance of the then Chief Minister but at the time of arguments no submissions were made on that score.

(2.) The respondents have filed their written statement. In their separate written statement, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have submitted that the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, is a university created by Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi and it cannot be styled as a fake university. A reference has been made to Memo No. 1451, dated 7.7.2005, to submit that the name of the aforementioned institute is not included in the list of self style institution/university declared fake by U.G.C. In its separate reply, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission respondent No. 3 has pointed out that the petitioner belongs to BC-B category and he appeared in the interview against Roll No. 2749 and out of 75 marks he had secured 44.27 marks in that category as against 46.03 marks of the last selected candidate in the impugned select list of this category. Respondent No. 4, who also belongs to BC-B category had obtained 47.13 marks. Therefore, it has been suggested that no interference of this Court would be warranted. A separate written statement has been filed by respondent No. 4.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the diploma course awarded by the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi has to be considered as acceptable course satisfying the requirement of eligibility of respondent No. 4 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The Haryana Staff Selection 2 Commission respondent No. 3 has pointed out in para 2 of its affidavit dated 5.5.2006 that Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, is covered in the list of universities as recognized by the University Grants Commission and that All India Council for Technical Education has also approved the aforementioned institution for degree programmes in engineering. A request with regard to diploma in question has been forwarded by respondent No. 3 on 2.8.2005 to clarify the issue whether a Diploma in Civil Engineering issued by Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, is recognized by the All India Council of Technical Education. However, we find that the issue does not require probe at length because the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Bharathidasan University and another v. All India Council for Technical Education and others, AIR 2001 SC 2861, has held that a diploma awarded by a university did not require approval of All India Council of Technical Education. Therefore, it has to be held that the diploma course obtained by respondent No. 4 does not suffer from any legal infirmity, which may result into pronouncing that respondent No. 4 was ineligible, especially when no approval for issuance of such a diploma is required from All India Council of Technical Education. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 4 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.