BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. versus KAMINI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 182 · Decided: 16-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. 
v. 
.. . 
KAMIN! AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKERANDALTAMASKABIR,JJ.] 
' 
Service Law-Appointment-Post ofDistrict Fisheries Officer-Requisite 
eligibility qualifications, B.Sc. Zoology-Zoology should be principal/main 
c 
subject--Candidate possession B.Sc. Chemistry along with Zoology and Botany 
as subsidiary/optional subjects called/or interview due to mistake-Rejection 
of candidature-Report of Expert Committee that student would be called 
Graduate in a subject if he has Honours in that subject at Graduate level and 
as such candidate negligible-Correctness of-Held: Report of Expert 
Committee not contrary to law or arbitrary-Since the candidate did not 
D possess the requisite qualification, cancellation was proper-Only because 
some negligible candidates were wrongly treated as eligible, candidate 
cannot insist that she must be treated eligible-Doctrine of equality-
l 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14. 
., 
Appellant-State Public Service Commission issued advertisement for 
E appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive 
Officer. The requisite educational qualification was B.Sc. Zoology with other 
qualifications. First respondent, holding degree of B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry 
with Zoology and Botany, Chemistry being the principal/main subject and 
Zoology and Botany as subsidiary/optional subjects, applied for the post. 
F Though she did not possess the requisite qualifications of B.Sc. Zoology, the 
appellant issued her Interview letter. On scrutiny of the mark-sheet, it was 
found that the respondent did not have Hons. Degree in Zoology and was not 
eligible for the post. When she appeared for the inten•iew, her candidature 
was cancelled. Respondent made a representation. Appellant constituted an 
Expert Committee which submitted its Report that a student will be considered 
G a Graduate in the subject only if he/she has obtained the Degree in that subject 
at the Graduate level and if subject is subsidiary (or side subject) he/she could 
not be called graduate in that subject and as such the first respondent was 
~~ 
found to be ineligible and the cancellation was correct. First respondent filed 
' 
a writ petition which was dismissed. However, Division Bench of High Court 
H 
182 
-
1' 
BIHARPUBLIC SER VICE COMMISSION v. KAMIN! 
183 
allowed the Letters Patent Appeal. Hence the present appeal. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The advertisement is explicitly clear and states that the 
candidate must be Honours in B.Sc. Zoology. In pursuance of the 
advertisement, which was clear, the first respondent was not eligible for the B 
appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer. Inspite of that, she applied 
for the said post Initially a letter was issued by the Commission calling upon 
her to appear before the Commission for interview. However, it was a mistake 
on the part of the Commission. As soon as the Commission realized that the 
first respondent was not having requisite qualifications for the post and was 
not eligible, her candidature was rejected. When a representation was made C 
by the first respondent that cancellation of her candidature was not proper 
and that the decision should be reconsidered by the Commission, the 
Commission thought it fit to look into her grievance and an Expert Committee 
was appointed. (Para 7) [187-D-F) 
D 
1.2. In the field of education, a Court of Law cannot act as an expert 
Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite 
qualifications should better be left to educational institutions . .This is 
particularly s.o when it is supported by an Expert Committee. The Expert 
Committee considered the matter and observed that a person can be said to be 
Honours in the subject if at the Graduate level, he/she studies such subject E 
as the principal subject having eight papers and not a subsidiary, optional or 
side subject having two papers. Such a decision, cannot be termed arbitrary 
or otherwise objectionable. It cannot be said to be contrary to law. Single Judge 
of High Court was right in dismissing the petition relying upon the Report of 
the Committee and in upholding the objection of the Commission. Division F 
Bench was in error in ignoring the well considered report of the Expert 
Committee and in setting aside the decision of the Single Judge. 
[Paras 7 and 8) (188-A-B; 187-G-H; 188-GI 
1.3. The Division Bench of High Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.