Supreme Court: In a review petition related to equivalence of Diploma in Art & Craft by Industrial Training and Vocational Education with the one offered by Kurukshetra University for the purpose of recruitment for the posts of Art & Craft Teachers by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (‘HSSC’), the Division Bench of Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ. directed the appointing authority to strictly go by the merit ranking in the selection list of 2021 while making appointments without disturbing the appointments already made or the seniority of such appointees.
Background
The instant matter relates to the recruitment process initiated by the HSSC in 2006 to fill 816 posts of Art & Craft Teachers. The eligibility for the said posts required a 2-year Diploma in Art & Craft conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification, recognized by the Haryana Education Department. A letter issued by the Director of Haryana School Education on 12-12-2006 intimated that the Diploma in Art & Craft by Industrial Training and Vocational Education was the only recognized course in the State of Haryana. The said communication was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Litigation Trajectory
The High Court allowed the Civil Writ Petition in Suman Lata v. State of Haryana, 2007 SCC OnLine P&H 1716, holding that the 2-year Diploma in Art & Craft offered by the Kurukshetra University had already been recognized by the State of Haryana in 1999 and the said communication did not mention any policy decision contrary to the same. However, the Supreme Court set aside the same and allowed Devender Bhaskar v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1116 to hold that “equivalence of qualifications is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine” as against the High Court’s finding that ‘Diploma in Art & Craft of Kurukshetra University was equivalent to the Diploma in Art & Craft of Haryana Industrial Training Department.’ The said observation of the Court was sought for review in the instant petitions by the aggrieved Diploma holders.
The Court noted that when their applications were refused to be entertained by the authorities for securing Diplomas from Kurukshetra University, writ petitions were filed before the High Court and interim orders permitting the applicants to provisionally participate in the selection process and quashed the selection process held after the said communication. After the same was confirmed in another litigation and appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court, fresh selection was held, and selection list was communicated on 17-11-2021 indicating selection of 756 candidates and 64 candidates being waitlisted. Among the total of 820 candidates, 613 of the selected candidates and 54 candidates in the waiting list held Diplomas from Kurukshetra University. However, the recommendation dated 4-03-2022 contained appointment of only 153 candidates out of the 820 candidates, as the remaining 667 candidates possessed Diplomas from Kurukshetra University.
When the instant appeal was allowed by the Court on 24-11-2021, another batch of petitions followed before the High Court disposed of in Manoj Kumar & others v. State of Haryana (2021) with directions to authorities to complete the selection process within a time frame. This was followed by HSSC addressing letter dated 27-12-2022 to recommend 178 candidates for appointment who possessed Diplomas in Art & Craft from the Haryana Industrial Training Department and other institutions, and not from Kurukshetra University, therefore making 331 appointments and leaving 485 of the 816 notified posts vacant.
Court’s Decision in HSSC Art & Craft Teachers Recruitment 2006
The Court mentioned the case of Ram Bhagat v. State of Haryana (1996) wherein, the High Court constituted a committee for deciding the issue of equivalence and recognition of Examinations/Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates awarded by Institutions other than Universities established by law or by Deemed Universities. The said Committee decided that the Degrees/Diplomas/ Certificates/Examinations of Kurukshetra University, amongst others, would be recognized in the State of Haryana for admission and recruitment purposes, which led to setting aside the communication dated 12-12-2006.
The Court highlighted the Haryana government’s willingness to accept Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University as an equivalent qualification to the Diploma in Art & Craft secured from Haryana Industrial Training Department. Further, the Director, Elementary Education, Haryana, through letter dated 23-01-2023 sought clarification from Kurukshetra University regarding the equivalence with reference to Kurukshetra University certifying that the Art & Craft Diploma offered by it was equivalent to the Art & Craft course conducted by the ITI, Haryana for all purposes, which was explained to be recommendation of a Standing Committee after comparing the syllabus and finding that both courses were of comparable standard in terms of content, credit requirements and attainment level.
The Court further pointed towards the communication by the Director, Elementary Education, Haryana to the Additional Advocate General of Haryana manifesting that the government was ready to accommodate candidates with Diplomas in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University who were meritorious and included in the selection list dated 14-11-2021, without adversely affecting the 178 candidates who were conditionally appointed as per the High Court’s directions. Since the issue no longer persisted, there would be no hindrance to their being considered for appointment, and thus, the Court was not required to delve into the matter of equivalence of the two qualifications.
The Court clarified that appointments made after the instant judgment would be limited to vacant posts notified under communication of 2006 and could not be extended to vacancies which arose thereafter. The Court directed the appointing authority to strictly go by the merit ranking in the selection list dated 14-11-2021 while making appointments without disturbing the appointments already made or the seniority of such appointees. The Court justified that the petitioners were being accommodated and appointed despite the long-time lapse since the inception of this recruitment process and those already appointed have already put in significant length of regular service prior to the belated entry of the new appointees into regular service at this stage. The Court directed expeditious exercise by the authorities to complete the process within 2 months.
[Neeraj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 756, decided on 3-07-2023]
Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjay Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate on Record Shubham Bhalla, Advocate Yajur Bhalla, Advocate Anchita Nayyar, Advocate Akansha Gulati, Advocate Ragini Sharma, Advocate on Record Devashish Bharuka, Advocate Sarvshree, Advocate Shobhit Dvivedi, Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia, Advocate on Record Tushar Bakshi, Advocate Vinod K. Soni, Advocate Mohit Sharma, Advocate R. Prashant Bhrigu, Advocate E. Elangovn, Advocate Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Advocate on Record V. Maheshwari, Senior Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate Nikunj, Advocate on Record Monika Gusain, Advocate on Record Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate Parul Sharma, Advocate Shantanu Sharma, Advocate Deeksha Gaur, Advocate on Record Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocate Prateek Yadav, Advocate Puran Mal Saini, Advocate Anzu K. Varkey, Advocate Pati Raj Yadav, Advocate Yogesh Yadav, Advocate on Record Aditya Ranjan, Advocate on Record Devashish Bharuka, Advocate Jasbir Singh Malik, Advocate Muskan Agarwal Advocate on Record Varun Punia, Senior Advocate R.P. Malhotra, Advocate on Record Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate Subodh Kumar Pathak, Advocate Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate Shashi Ranjan, Advocate Abhay Kumar, Advocate Shagun Ruhil, Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, Advocate Shaurya Lamba, Advocate Bano Deswal,Advocate on Record Surender Singh Hooda.
