ANIL KUMAR JALALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection made by the respondents to the post of Assistant Grading and Marketing Officer advertized by respondent No. 2 in January, 1990. He has further prayed that respondents be directed to restart the selection process of the candidate and for considering the petitioner also for the post of Assistant Grading and Marketing Officer. The factual basis laid down for the relief claimed is that the petitioner has passed his Matriculation examination in 1977 and inter Agriculture Science in session 1979 -80(Part -I) and in 1980 -81 (part II), obtained his degree in B.A. from Agra University in the year 1983 with General English, Agriculture Marketing (Community Development and Marketing) as his subjects. Thereafter, petitioner did his Masters Degree, known as M.A. in Co -operation from Agra University in the year 1985. Vide Notification No. 10/PSC of 1985 dated 16 -11 -1985, the Public Service Commission invited applications from permanent resident of the J&K State for the post of Assistant Grading and Marketing Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Following qualifications were prescribed in the said notification:

(2.) BY an SRO (being No. 559 dated 12 -12 -1981) Jammu and Kashmir Horticulture (Planning & Marketing) Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules. 1981 were enforced. The post of Assistant Grading and marketing Officer was one of the posts for which the mode of recruitment and qualifications were laid down. It required that a candidate for recruitment as Assistant Grading and marketing Officer should possess a Degree from a recognised University with Economics as on of the subjects; degree in Commerce and Diploma in Agriculture; preference being given to person holding a Degree in Agriculture Marketing/Market Management. Vide SRO No. 14 dated 10 -01 -1990, an amendment was brought to the schedule II of the J&K Horticulture (Planning and Marketing) Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1981, and the minimum qualification for direct recruits to the post of Assistant Grading and Marketing Officer was substituted as B.A. Degree with Economics as a subject with Diploma in Agriculture Marketing; or (ii) Commerce Graduate with Diploma in Agriculture Marketing or (iii) B.Sc. Agriculture with Diploma in Agriculture Marketing/ Marketing Management. On 09 -04 -1987, the petitioner was informed by the Public Service Commission that his application was not entertainable, as he was ineligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Grading and marketing Officer. The Rules were amended in 1990, but he was informed much earlier to that he was not eligible. But the petitioner has neither challenged the Notification of 1985 nor the selection made thereon. Therefore, this Court is not going into the merits of the controversy raised with regard to the selection made in pursuance of the notice issued in the year 1985. This writ petition has been filed in the year 1985. This writ petition has been filed in April, 1991 because subsequently the Public Service Commission issued a notice again in January, 1991, for the post of Assistant Grading and Marketing Officer. Petitioner again submitted his application for the said post. According to the petitioner, he submitted his application on 23 -08 -1990. The petitioner was not informed by the Public Service Commission about the fate of his application. However, he came to know that Public Service Commission had not entered his application again on the ground that he was not eligible because of lack of qualification. He submits that he came to know that interview had been conducted and certain candidates had been called for interview. At the time of filing of the writ petition, according to the petitioner, the select list under the process of being framed.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged non -entertainment of his application form by the Public Service Commission in pursuance to the advertisement notice issued in January, 1990. The main cause projected by the petitioner is that he has Masters Degree from Agra University. While obtaining Masters Degree in co -operation from Agra University, Agriculture Marketing and Agriculture Economics were also subject of his course. He further submits that a Diploma in Agriculture Marketing is in no circumstances superior to the Masters Degree in co -operation. By a supplementary affidavit, he has indicated the list of subjects which are taught in the course of Diploma in Agriculture Marketing, and the Subjects which are taught in Masters Degree in the Co -operation. The petitioner wants this Court to sit as an expert and give a judicial finding with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner possesses better qualification in the field of Agriculture Marketing, as against those persons who have a Diploma in Agriculture Marketing. Mr. D.C. Raina appearing for the respondents submits that although Diploma is not a Post Graduation, but it is a Diploma which is only obtained in a particular field after graduation. In masters Degree in co -operation, various subjects are taught, not with a purpose of becoming an expert in Agriculture Marketing, but for becoming an expert in co -operation. What the State needed was an expert in Agriculture Marketing. The petitioner might have read Agriculture Marketing as one of the subjects in his Masters Degree, but that does not in itself make him a better expert in Agriculture Marketing than those candidates who are only taught the subjects which are concerned/connected to the promotion and development of Agriculture Marketing. Leaving the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties as they are, this Court is of the view that it is primarily for the State to prescribe the qualifications for the post to which they are going to make the appointments. They are the best masters to know as to what should be the qualifications of a candidate for being appointed against a particular post. Since admittedly, the petitioner is not a Diploma in Agriculture Marketing, in my view he was not eligible for consideration, and if the Public Service Commission had rejected, his application, they had done so rightly.