ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KOCHI vs. AARYA K. BABU

                        REPORTABLE                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6206   OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16567 of 2016) Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal          .…Appellant(s) Office, Kochi & Ors.                   Versus Aarya K. Babu & Anr.              ….  Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6207   OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.24764 of 2016) Syndicate Bank Ltd.        .…Appellant(s)                   Versus Anandu V.S.& Anr.              ….  Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.                 Leave granted.      Signature Not Verified 2.       In   the   civil   appeal   arising   out   of   SLP(C) Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2020.02.05 17:26:22 IST Reason: No.16567/2016 the appellant­Bank of India is before this Page 1 of 21 Court   assailing   the   order   dated   24.05.2016   passed   in W.A.No.313/2016.     The   said   appeal   before   the   High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam was filed against the order passed   in   WP(C)   No.39083/2015   whereby   the   learned Single Judge of that High Court had allowed the writ petition by an order dated 20.01.2016.   In the appeal arising   out   of   SLP(C)   No.24764/2016   the   appellant­ Syndicate   Bank   Ltd.   is   assailing   the   order   dated 24.05.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.404/2016, whereby the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   had upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.17403/2015 dated 20.12.2016. 3. Though   in   these   two   appeals   the   parties   are different,   keeping   in   view   the   question   arising   for consideration is the same in both these appeals and since the High Court has disposed of the appeals through the common order, these two appeals are taken up, heard together and disposed of by this common order.  For the purpose   of   narration   of   facts,   the   case   as   pleaded   in SLP(C) No.16567/2016 is taken note.   In respect of the Page 2 of 21 recruitment   to   be   made   in   the   Banking   Sector   the respondent No.2 herein, an institute of Indian Banking Personnel   Selection   (“IBPS”   for   short)   undertakes   the process   of   recruitment   by   issue   of   appropriate Notification in that regard.   4. In the instant fact situation, the Notification dated 17.11.2014   was   issued   calling   for   applications   from interested   candidates   for   the   different  posts   that   were advertised therein.   The consideration herein relates to the recruitment for the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale­1).  The private respondents in both these appeals are applicants for the said post.  The process of selection was   undertaken   and   the   private   respondents   in   both these   appeals   were   provisionally   selected,   subject   to verification   of   their   documents   and   were   accordingly allotted by the IBPS to the respective appellant Banks herein.     However,   the   selection   of   both   the   private respondents was cancelled on the ground that the private respondents   herein   did   not   possess   the   qualification prescribed in the notification for appointment.   It is in Page 3 of 21 that   regard   the   private   respondents   claiming   to   be aggrieved by such action were before the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court assailing the termination orders   in   the   respective   writ   petitions   as   taken   note above.   5. The   learned   Single   Judge   on   taking   note   that though   the   requirement   in   the   Notification   was   of graduates   possessing   Degree   in   “Agro­Forestry”   had taken   into   consideration   that   the   private   respondents herein had secured the 4­year Degree in “Forestry” and held the same to be sufficient.  In that regard  the learned Single   Judge   had   taken   note   that   there   is   no   4­year Degree   Programme   being   offered   in   this   country   for “Agro­Forestry” and in that background on referring to the   information   furnished   by   the   Indian   Council   of Agricultural Research (“ICAR” for short) which had been relied upon by the private respondents herein, had taken into consideration   that as per the said institution, the definition   of   Agriculture   included   “Forestry”.     In   that background   finding   the   same   to   be   an   appropriate Page 4 of 21 qualification had favourably considered the case of the private respondents herein.  That apart it was also taken note that the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare as also the Ministry of Finance have subsequently taken note of the error that there is no 4­year Course in “Agro­ Forestry”   in   the   country   and   that   “Agro­Forestry”   is covered comprehensively as the subject in ICAR approved syllabus   for   B.Sc.   in   “Forestry”   and   that   it   can   be considered as the qualification for the post of Agricultural Field Officer in Banks.  In that background, taking into consideration   all   these   aspects   of   the   matter   the termination orders issued to the private respondents in withdrawing the offer of appointment were set aside and the   appellants   herein   were   directed   to   take   back   the private respondents into service. 6. The appellants herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single were before the Division Bench in the appeals as referred to above.  The Division Bench also had taken note of these aspects and the consideration made by the learned Single Judge in Page 5 of 21 this regard was upheld.  In the course of the proceedings in the Writ Appeal the appellants herein had relied upon the judgment dated 09.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in W.P.(C)   No.4823/2015   titled   as   Kishor   Deoramji Gahane   vs.   The   Institute   of   Banking   Personnel .  The said judgment was cited since Selection & Others the very issue relating to qualification of B.Sc. in “Agro­ Forestry”   had   arisen   for   consideration   and   in   that background   it   was   also   taken   note   therein   that   a corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 had been issued whereby the   4   year   B.Sc.   Degree   in   Forestry,   Agricultural Biotechnology, Food Science and Agricultural Business Management   were   also   included   as   the   recognised educational qualification for appointment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale­1).  In that circumstance, in that case it was noticed that the advertisement was of the   year   2015   while   the   corrigendum   was   issued   on 16.01.2016 and in that view the Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench had declined the relief to the petitioner Page 6 of 21 therein by holding that the qualification depicted in the notification will be relevant.   The Division Bench of the Kerala   High   Court   in   the   present   case   had   however, respectfully disagreed with the said view and proceeded to uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants herein.  It is in that light the appellants are before this Court.   7. In the above background we have heard Shri A.B. Dial, learned senior counsel in the appeal arising out of SLP(C)   No.24764/2016,   Shri   Rajesh   Kumar,   learned counsel appearing in the appeal arising out of the SLP© No.16567/2016 as also Shri Kaleeswaram Raj and Shri Jagat   Arora   respective   learned   counsel   for   the respondents.   We have also perused the appeal papers including the impugned judgments passed by the High Court. 8. Though   extensive   arguments   were   advanced   the issue lies in a very narrow compass.  The short question for consideration is as to whether the courts would be justified   in   undertaking   the   exercise   of   providing Page 7 of 21 equivalence to another qualification so as to declare it to be   equivalent   to   the   qualification   prescribed   in   the recruitment Notification by taking note of the extraneous factors though such equivalence of qualification is not declared by the employer who makes the recruitment. The second aspect would be as to whether any particular educational   qualification   made   eligible   subsequent   to issue   of   recruitment   Notification   can   be   considered retrospectively   in   respect   of   the   recruitment   process which   has   commenced   prior   to   such   an   additional educational qualification being treated as eligible and the process of recruitment in respect of such notification is already concluded.   In that background an examination of these aspects is necessary in the instant case. 9. The   qualification   prescribed   for   the   post   of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale­1) as issued under the Notification dated 17.11.2014 which is the subject matter herein, is as hereunder: “4   year   Degree   (graduation)   in  Agriculture/ Horticulture/   Animal   Husbandry   /   Veterinary Science / Dairy Science / Agri Engineering / Page 8 of 21 Fishery Science / Pisciculture / Agri Marketing &   Co­operation   /   Co­operation   &   Banking   / Agro­Forestry.”    (emphasis supplied) 10. The   private   respondents   herein   had   applied   in response   to   the   said   notification,   on   24.11.2014   and despite the private respondent in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.16567/2016 had admittedly possessed the qualification   of   B.Sc.   (Forestry)   had   indicated   the qualification as Agro­Forestry in the application.  Be that as it may, the process of selection was undertaken and appointment letter was issued to the private respondents in   the   two   appeals,   on   17.09.2015   and   29.05.2015 respectively.     In   the   letter   of   appointment,   it   was specifically mentioned that the appointment is subject to producing   the   original   documents   which   included   the proof regarding qualification.   Needless to mention that the proof regarding qualification refers to the qualification as   depicted   in   the   notification   dated   17.11.2014. However, since it was subsequently noticed that she did not possess the degree in B.Sc. (Agro­Forestry), she was Page 9 of 21 issued a show cause notice dated 03.11.2015 and she was terminated through the order dated 10.12.2015.  A similar course was adopted in so far as the other private respondent   as   well.     It   is   no   doubt   true   that   on 18.11.2015 an Office Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of  Agriculture, Co­operation and Farmers Welfare (Policy Division),   whereby   on   taking   note   that   no       4­year Bachelor   Program   in   Agro­Forestry   is   available   in   the country   and   since   Agro­Forestry   is   covered comprehensively   as   a   subject   in   the   ICAR   approved syllabus for B.Sc.(Forestry), it was suggested that it will be   appropriate   that   B.Sc.   (Forestry)   graduation   be considered for the position of Agricultural Field Officer in Banks.     Accordingly,   a  corrigendum   dated   16.01.2016 was issued by IBPS.   It is not in dispute that based on such   decision   taken,   for   the   recruitment   made subsequently,   B.Sc.   (Forestry)   was   included   as   the qualification for recruitment of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale­I). Page 10 of 21 11.  The issue however is, when the said qualification was not depicted in the relevant recruitment Notification which is the subject matter and in that circumstance if recruitment has been wrongly made of the persons who did not possess the qualification which was notified but had still applied and the appointment made on that basis is sustained, would it not be to the disadvantage of other persons   who   had   possessed   the   same   qualification   of B.Sc.   (Forestry)   degree   but   had   not   applied   since   the Notification did not depict the said qualification but had indicated some other qualification.  In that regard, at the outset it is necessary to take note that the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of  Kishor Deoramji Gahane  (supra) relied upon by the appellants herein before the High Court in   fact had addressed this issue wherein it was held that the corrigendum   issued   subsequent   to   the   advertisement would not be beneficial,  since the petitioner therein did not   possess   the   qualification   notified   in   recruitment Notification. Page 11 of 21 12. The   learned   counsel   for   the   private   respondents however contended that the High Court was justified in taking note that the course for Degree in B.Sc. (Agro­ Forestry) was not being imparted in the country and in such event the very Notification seeking for candidates possessing   4­year   Degree   in   B.Sc.   (Agro­Forestry)   was erroneous   and   as   such   the   Degree   in   B.Sc.   (Forestry) should be considered.  The learned counsel seeks to rely upon   the   Bank   of   India   (Officers)   Service   Regulations, 1979 to contend that in Clause­16.9 thereof a reference is made to “Special Officers” wherein it is indicated that one of the category therein being “Agriculture Officers”, the   qualification   thereunder   indicated   is   Degree   in Agriculture   and/or   allied   subjects   and recruited/promoted/converted as such.  In that view the learned   counsel   contends   that   as   per   the   information furnished   by   ICAR   dated   01.04.2015   the   definition   of “Agriculture” would include “Forestry” and in such event it   will   have   to   be   construed   that   even   though   the Notification   seeks   for   candidates   possessing   Degree   in Page 12 of 21 B.Sc.   (Agro­Forestry)   it   would   include   B.Sc.   (Forestry) which is an allied subject of Agriculture.   13. Though we have taken note of the said contention we   are   unable   to   accept   the   same.     We   are   of   such opinion in view of the well­established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and thereby include   certain   qualifications   which   have   not   been included in the Notification by the employer.  Further the rules   as   referred   to   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of officers.   That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in  the   advertisement  was   contrary   to   the   qualification provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been open   for   the   candidate   concerned   to   challenge   the Notification alleging denial of opportunity.  On the other hand,   having   taken   note   of   the   specific   qualification prescribed in the Notification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by such   candidate   is   equivalent   and   thereby   seek consideration for appointment nor will it even be open for Page 13 of 21 the   employer   to   change   the   requirements   midstream during   the   ongoing   selection   process   or   accept   any qualification other than the one notified since it would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the qualification but had not applied as it was not notified.   14. In fact, this view is fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of  Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs.  Aligarh  (2009) 4 SCC 555 relied on by Muslim University & Ors. the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant.     In   the   said decision it is held as hereunder:

Page 15 of 21 If the above decision is kept in perspective it is clear that while   examining   the   correctness   of   the   action   of   the employer   what   would   be   sacrosanct   will   be   the qualification criteria published in the Notification, since if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream is   accepted   by   the   Court   so   as   to   benefit   only   the petitioners before it, without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification but had not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possess the qualification sought for in the Notification though they otherwise held another degree.  Therefore, if there is any change in qualification / criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of the selection process and the employer / recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be incumbent on the employer   to   issue   a   corrigendum   incorporating   the changes to the notification and invite applications from those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider Page 16 of 21 the same along with the applications received in response to the initial notification.   The same principle will hold good when a consideration is made by the Court.  15. If in that background the instant facts are taken note, it would disclose that the Notification depicting the qualification required as Degree in B.Sc. (Agro­Forestry) was issued on 17.11.2014 and the process of selection had come to an end when the private respondents herein were   issued   the   appointment   letters   dated   17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively.  Admittedly as on such date the Notification required the candidates possessing B.Sc. (Agro­Forestry)   but   the   private   respondents   were graduates   in   B.Sc.   (Forestry)   and   as   such   were   not qualified to respond.  The change was made subsequent thereto by the general corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including   the   qualification   of   B.Sc.   (Forestry),   which would be effective from that day by providing opportunity to all those holding that qualification.  Therefore, in such cases   the   change   of   qualification   whereby   the qualification   of   the   private   respondents   gets   included Page 17 of 21 subsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone when several others  who could  have applied were prevented from doing so. 16. Further   it   is   not   for   the   Court   to   provide   the equivalence   relating   to   educational   qualifications inasmuch   as   the   said   issue   has   been   settled   by   the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of   Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors,  (1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it is held that the question   in   regard   to   equivalence   of   educational qualifications   is   a   technical   question   based   on   proper assessment   and   evaluation   of   the   relevant   academic standards   and   practical   attainments   of   such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately   discharging   such   a   function,   the   Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights   necessary   for   the   purpose   of   determining Page 18 of 21 equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government.  17.       In   that   backdrop,   though   in   the   instant   facts presently   the   qualification   possessed   by   the   private respondents is decided to be included for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer, as on the date of the recruitment Notification the same was not included   therein,   which   cannot   be   substituted   by   the Court   with   retrospective   effect   for   the   reasons   stated above.       Therefore,   in   the   said   circumstance,   in   the present   facts,   the   High   Court   was   not   justified   in   its conclusion.  We, however, make it clear that though we have referred to the legal position and applied the same to the case of the parties who are before us, if in the case of  similar   recruitment,   the   employers   themselves   have permitted the equivalence and have continued such of those officers recruited, this decision shall not be applied to   initiate   action   against   such   officers   at   this   distant point of time.  Subject to the above, the orders passed by Page 19 of 21 the High Court of Kerala which are impugned herein are set aside. 18. Having   arrived   at   the   above   conclusion   we   also take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the private   respondent   in   the   appeal   arising   out   of   SLP© No.16567/2016 namely Smt. Aarya K. Babu that she is placed in a very difficult circumstances subsequent to the discharge from service which is also due to certain set back in her personal life.   Though we do not wish to articulate the actual fact situation narrated we have no reason   to   disbelieve   the   same,   hence,   we   find   it appropriate that in her case it is necessary to exercise our discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution to serve the ends of justice and do complete justice without prejudicing either of the parties.  In that view, we direct the appellant Bank of India to provide appointment to Smt. Aarya K. Babu as Agricultural Field Officer or such other equivalent post if the vacancy exists as on today or in the vacancy that would arise in future.  In that regard it is made clear that the same will be considered as a Page 20 of 21 fresh appointment from the date of appointment and no previous benefit can be claimed by her.   Further, it is made clear that this direction is issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case. 19. Subject   to   the   above   observations,   both   the appeals   are   allowed   with   no   order   as   to   costs.       All pending applications stand disposed of. ……………………….J. (R. BANUMATHI) ……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, August 08, 2019 Page 21 of 21