ANAND PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing action of the respondents in as much he has been denied appointment of Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer/Assistant Plant Protection Officer/ Assistant Cane Development Officer/Submatter Specialist, Agriculture Department. It has been claimed that the petitioner be appointed w.e.f. the date persons lower in order of merit than him have been appointed with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission- respondent No. 2 (for brevity 'the HSSC') advertised 51 posts of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer/Assistant Plant Protection Officer/Assistant Cane Development Officer/Sub matter Specialist, on 21.6.2007. Last date for submission of application was 20.7.2007. The petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste category also claims to be duly eligible in all respects. He had applied for the post and was interviewed on 30.10.2007. The result was declared on 15.2.2008. The name of the petitioner appeared in the list of selected candidates. It is claimed that 11 candidates selected alongwith the petitioner who were lower in order of merit to him have been given appointment letters on 1.8.2008. The petitioner has claimed that 7 posts were advertised for Scheduled Caste category and the petitioner was within the first seven candidates. However, still the petitioner has been denied the appointment despite the fact that he is eligible in all respects. The petitioner has also claimed that vide letter dated 27.5.2008 clarification has been sought from the HSSC by the Government regarding the educational qualifications of the petitioner. A specific query made is whether the petitioner fulfill the educational qualifications as per the Haryana Agriculture Group 'B' Service Rules, 1995. Although there is no reply sent by the HSSC yet the petitioner has claimed that HSSC had replied in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) The whole controversy in this petition revolves around the educational qualifications of the petitioner. According to the advertisement, essential educational qualification required is B.Sc. (Hons.) in Agriculture and 2nd Class M.Sc. (Agriculture) from a recognised University. The petitioner has passed B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture. He has also qualified M.Sc. in Dairy Extension Education with 72 percent marks. The petitioner has claimed that Post Graduate Degree of M.Sc. in Dairy Extension Education must be accepted equivalent to M.Sc. Agriculture from a recognised University. In that regard he has placed reliance on the certificate issued by the National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University) in August, 2007 which provides that qualification of M.Sc. in the discipline of Dairy Extension- Education is equivalent to Degree of M.Sc. in Agriculture Extension. According to the learned counsel the respondent State has issued instructions on 2.11.1995 (Annexure P.5) stipulating that degrees recognised by NDRI, Karnal would stand recognised in the State of Haryana for appointment and recruitment purposes. On the basis of the afore-mentioned instructions, the petitioner has claimed that degree of M.Sc. in Dairy Extension Education must be treated as Degree of M.Sc. Agriculture Extension.