Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment dated 10.11.2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming that he was holding an equivalent qualification of a CCC Certificate as prescribed under the Rules, has been dismissed, by noting a distinction in relation to the actually qualification possessed by the petitioner.
The judgment has been assailed primarily on two grounds that firstly, the qualification of the appellant falls within the equivalence of the Rules and secondly, the judgment in the case of Abha Tripathi and 24 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others and two other connected petitions decided on 16.9.2016 also supports the cause of the appellant which has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
The background in which the aforesaid arguments have been advanced is that the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari was to be filled up for which the respondent-Commission was proceeding to process the same. The appellant possessed the qualification of Master's Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication as also a Bachelor's Degree in the same stream with Computer as one of the subjects. The minimum educational qualification, that is required to be possessed has been explained by the Commission through the Order dated 26.5.2015. The Academic Qualification for the post in question has been prescribed in Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Rules, 1978 which is extracted hereunder:-
"8. Academic Qualification - A candidate for direct recruitment to the post of Panchayat Sewak must have passed Intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education or an examination recognized as equivalent thereto."
The said qualification was further supplemented by the requirement of a Computer Concept Course (CCC) Certificate from DOEACC Society introduced by a Government Order and the issue before the learned Single Judge was as to whether the equivalance of such a certificate was possessed by the appellant or not.
The judgment in the case of AbhaTripathi (supra) that was extensively quoted by the learned Single Judge held that the State Government had itself decided that High School and Intermediate Certificates with Computer as a subject, being equivalent to the said certificate, would be acceptable, and which further explained that if the candidate has a Diploma or a Degree as a higher qualification the same would have to be treated as equivalent to the CCC Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society. There is no dispute to this extent.
The dispute in the present case is clearly confined to the possession of such a equivalent qualification by the appellant.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the submission on behalf of the respondent-Commission is that the appellant possesses Bachelor and Master's Degrees only in Journalism and Mass Communication which cannot be an equivalent qualification in the stream of Computers as understood and as defined by the Commission while granting such equivalence to the Degree or Diploma as a higher qualification. It is also urged that the petitioner is not qualified as he does not possess a High School or Intermediate with Computer as one of the subjects. It is further submitted that the judgment in the case of Abha Tripathi (supra), nowhere comes to the aid of the appellant and therefore the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, indicating that merely because the appellant possesses a Diploma or a Degree with Computer as one of the subjects, cannot be faulted with and further that the conclusion that the Court has not laid down any principle as culled out in the case of Abha Tripathi (supra), also does not suffer from any infirmity.
We have gone through the judgment in the case of Abha Tripathi (supra) and we find the following observations to be relevant for the purpose of resolving the present controversy:-
"So far as the petitioners no. 4 and 6 are concerned, they are shown to have done their High School and Intermediate with Computer as a subject. In the case of selection for the post of Junior Assistant/Stenographer where the eligibility criteria of CCC Certificate from DOEACC Society is the requirement, the State Government in its Notification dated 26.5.2015 Annexure-4 to the writ petition, has held that a candidate having computer in his High School and Intermediate Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education would also be said to be a valid qualification and it further provides that the persons having done their Diploma and Degree in Computer Science would also be eligible on the basis of equivalence with CCC Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society. In my opinion the question here in the present writ petition is not with regard to fitness for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari but with regard to a qualification other than CCC Certificate from DOEACC Society being equivalent to the said Certificate. Once the State Government itself has held High School and Intermediate Certificate with Computer as a subject being equivalent to the CCC Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society and Diploma and Degree to be equivalent to CCC Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society for the post of Junior Assistant/Stenographer it cannot make an arbitrary distinction when it comes to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. The respondents cannot adopt dual standards with regard to CCC certificate issued by the DOEACC Society when it comes to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Therefore, in my opinion for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari if a candidate does not have a CCC Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society but has Computer as a subject in High School or Intermediate or has a Diploma or a Degree as a higher qualification the same would have to be treated as equivalent to CCC Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society. Therefore, the petitioners no. 4 and 6 cannot be non suited only on the ground that they do not possess the Computer Concept Course (CCC) certificate issued by the DOEACC Society."
A perusal of the aforesaid ratio would leave no room for doubt that if a candidate does not have a CCC Certificate but had Computer as a subject in High School or Intermediate, or has a Diploma or Degree as a higher qualification, then the same would have to be treated as equivalent. Even otherwise it stands to logic that Computer is one of the subjects in High School or Intermediate and so is a subject alongwith a higher qualification so as to be equivalent to a Computer Concept Course Certificate. In the instant case, the Degree possessed by the petitioner admittedly has been obtained with Computer as one of the subjects. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid ratio of the decision lays down a principle that if Computer is one of the subjects in the higher qualification the same would be treated as equivalent. The higher qualification has to be with Computers as a subject and not exclusively in Computer Science.
The second reason for not accepting the argument of the respondent-Commission is that the results which were under consideration in the judgment of the Abha Tripathi (supra) mentions the name of one Mohd. Akil Jamal at Sl. No.13 whose qualification indicated is Bachelor of Arts with Computer as one of the subjects and the same has been accepted and the writ petition of Mohd. Akil Jamal has been allowed. The respondents have not chosen to question the correctness of the said judgment on any ground, insofar as it relates to the candidature of Mohd. Akil Jamal. Consequently, it is not open to the respondent-Commission now to contest the claim of the appellant on the ground that the higher qualification possessed by the appellant cannot be accepted as equivalent when admittedly the appellant possesses the qualification with Computer as one of the subjects as in the case of Mohd. Akil Jamal.
There is no other material which may lead us to draw any conclusion that the qualification possessed by the appellant cannot be otherwise treated as not equivalent nor is it the case of the respondent-Commission to that effect.
Consequently, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge on both counts with respect cannot be sustained. We accordingly, set aside the judgment dated 10.11.2016 and allow the writ petition as it relates to a peculiar qualification possessed by the appellant. The appellant shall also be entitled to be considered keeping in view the aforesaid observations and treating his higher qualification as possessed by him to be equivalent to a CCC Certificate as a result whereof he would be eligible for the post in question.
The appeal stands accordingly allowed.