PARVAIZAHMAD PARRYversusSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.

                      [2015] 12 S.C.R. 810


A                   PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY
                                v.
             STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 13368 of 2015)
B
                      NOVEMBER 06, 2015
                  [J. CHELAMESWAR AND
                ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

c       Service law: Appointment - Post of Range Officer
  (Forest) - Minimum qualification prescribed in the Rules for
  applying to the post of J & K Forest Service Range Officers
  Grade-I was "B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any
  University recognized by /CAR" - Eligibility of appellant
D candidate who completed B.Sc. with forestry as one of the
  major subjects from Garhwa/ University and also completed
  M Sc. (Forestry) from same University - Held: He is eligible
  for appointment to the post of Range Officer (Forest) - J & K
  Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1970.
                        '
E
        Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: The minimum qualification prescribed for
  applying to the post of J & K Forest Service Range
F Officers Grade-I was "B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from
  any University recognized by ICAR". It is not disputed
  that the appellant was to his credit a qualification of
  B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the major subjects and
  Masters in Forestry, i.e. M.Sc.(Forestry), on the date when
G he applied for the post in question, which satisfied the
  eligibility criteria so far as the qualification was
  concerned. There is no justification in the reasoning of
  the High Court that in order to be an eligible candidate,
  the appellant should have done B.Sc. in Forestry and
H since he had not done so, he was not considered as
                               810
    PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY v. STATE OF JAMMU &                  811
                  KASHMIR

an eligible candidate. This reasoning does not stand to A
any logic and is, therefore, not acceptable insofar as
the facts of this case are concerned. Firstly, if there
was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing
the qualification in the advertisement, then it should
have been clarified by the authority concerned in the B
advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, .
then benefit should have been given to the candid.ate
rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, eyen assuming
that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet
the appellant was admittedly having B.Sc. degree with C
Forestry as one of the major subjects in his graduation
and further he was also having Masters degree in
Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry). In the light of these facts,
the appellant was possessed of the prescribed
                                                              0
qualification to apply for the post in question and
his application could not have been rejected treating him
to be an ineligible candidate for not possessing
prescribed qualification. If a candidate has done B.Sc.
in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also E
done Masters in the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry)
then in the absence of any clarification on such issue,
the candidate possessing such higher qualification has
to be held to possess the required qualification to
apply for the post. In fact, acquiring higher F
qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was
sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the
prescribed qualification. It was coupled with the fact
that Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects
in graduation, due to which he was able to do his G
Masters in Forestry. [Paras 22 to 25) [815-H; 816-A-H;
817-A-B]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
13368of2015                                                  H
812         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A          . From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2013 of
      the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at
      Jammu in Letter Patent Appeal No. 102 of 2012

         Roh it Sthalekar,Avi Tandon, Saurabh Trivedi, Advs. for
 B theAppellant.

              G.M. Kawoosa, N. Ganpathy, Sunil Fe 1 nandes, Ms.
      Nithin Jain, Ms. Astha Sharma, Puneeth K., Advs., for the
      Respondents.
 c           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order
 D dated 10.05.2013 passed by the High_ Court of Jammu &
   Kashmir at Jammu in L. P.A. f'...lo. 102 of 2012 whereby the
   Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed
   by the appellant herein while upholding the judgment dated
   12.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
 E Court in SWP No. 2699 of 2010.

              3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal,
      which lie in a narrow compass, few relevant facts need mention
      lllfra.
 F
            4. The appellant completed B.Sc. with Forestry as one
      of the major subjects from Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in
      the year 2001. Thereafter he also completed his M.Sc.(Forestry)
      from the same University in the y~ar 2003.
 G         5. The appellant also passed the National Eligibility Test
      (NET) in Forestry from Indian Council of Agricultural Research
      (ICAR) in the year 2005-2006.

        6. The J & K Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment
 H Rules, 1970 (in short 'the Rules') lays down the eligibility
    PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY v. STATE OF JAMMU &                      813
       KASHMIR [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

qualifications for the post of Range Officer Grade-I (Forest) A
which is "B.Sc. Forestry or its equivalent from any
University recognized by the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research".

      7. The Indian Council of Forest Research & Education B
(in short "ICFRE") issued Notification dated 15.01.1999
clarifying that the syllabus of State Forest Service (in short
'SFS') Colleges was very much akin to that of Indira Gandhi
National Forest Academy (in Short "IGNFA"), therefore,
considering the high standard of training and education in the C
SFS Colleges, the ICFRE resolved that "SFS College
Diploma to be treated as equivalent to M.Sc.(Forestry)."

      8. By letter dated 15.02.2007, the Forest Research
Institute (in short 'FRI') informed the Department of Forest, J & D
K Government, that the SFS Colleges Diploma be treated as
equivalent to M.Sc. (Forestry). In turn, on 12.03.2007, the
Forest Department informed the same to the J.K. Public
Service Commission (JKPSC) endorsii:ig the opinion of the
FRI dated 15.02.2007.                                             E·

      9. By Notification dated 20.07.2007, the JKPSC
advertised 23 posts of J & K Forest Service Range Officers
Grade-I (Forest) and invited applications from the eligible
candidates. The eligibility qualification mentioned in the F
Notification was "B.Sc.(Forestry) or equivalent from any
University recognized by the ICAR". The appointment to
the post was to be made on the basis of written test, viva-voce
test, walking test and medical test. The appellant applied for
the said post.                                                  G

    .10. By Notification dated 08.09.2010, the JKPSC
declared the appellant as an ineligible candidate for
appointment to the post of Range Officer Grade-l(Forest) on
the ground that he does not possess the prescribed               H
814        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A qualification.

         11. On 07.10.2010, the appellant sent a representation
   to the JKPSC to re-consider his case as according to him, he
   possessed the qualification prescribed for the post. On
 B 11.10.2010, the appellant sent another representation to the
   JKPSC requesting it to allow him to participate in the selection.
   Since no action was taken on the representation, the appellant
   filed a petition being SWP No. 2699 of 2010 before the High
   Court for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the said
 C notification dated 08.09.2010 and for further direction to the
   Jl<PSC to allow him to participate in the selection process.

        12. The learned Single Judge, by interim order dated
   24.11.2010, allowed the appellant to appear in the written
 D examination subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
   Accordingly, the appellant appeared in the examination.

        13. On 22.02.2011, the result of the written examination
   was produced in the Court by the JKPSC, which declared the
 E appellant as successful. The learned Single Judge permitted
   the appellant to appear in the interview.

        14. On 22.07.2011, the JKPSC published a list of selected
   candidates who were recommended for appointment on the
   basis of merit but the list did not reflect the name of the
 F appellant.

           15. By order dated 12.11.2012, the learned Single Judge
      dismissed the writ petition.

 G      16. Against by the said order, the appellant preferred an
   appeal being LP.A. No. 102 of 2012 before the High Court.
   Pending disposal of the appeal, the Division Bench, by interim
   order dated 22.11.2012, directed that one post of Range
   Officer Grade-I (Forest) be reserved for the appellant.
 H However, by order dated 10.05.2013, the Division Bench
    PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY v. STATE OF JAMMU &                         815
       KASHMIR [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

dismissed the appeal.                                              A

     17. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant
preferrea this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

     18. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
                                                                   B
      19. Learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the
legality and correctness of the impugned judgment made two
submissions. In the first place, he contended that the writ court
and the appellate court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ
petition and the appeal. It was his submission that the C
reasoning of the writ court, which was simply upheld by the
appellate Court without examining the real issue, is wholly
perverse and being unsustainable in law deserves to be set
aside. In the second place, learned counsel contended that
when admittedly the appellant was having B.Sc. degree in D
Forestry as one of the major subjects and further he had also
obtained Masters degree in Forestry, M.Sc.(Forestry), and later
acquired higher qualification of Masters degree, i.e., M.Sc. in
Natural Resources and Environment from the University of E
Michigan, USA, he should have been held as an eligible
candidate for the post of J & K Forest Service Range Officers
Grade-I for which he had applied pursuantto the advertisement.

      20. In reply, learned counsel forthe respondents supported F
the impugned judgment and contended that no case is made
out to interfere in the impugned order and hence the appeal
should be dismissed.

    21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the G
submissions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

     22. As would be clear from the undisputed facts
mentioned above, the minimum qualification prescribed for
applying to the post of J & K Forest Service Range Officers H
816        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.



A  Grade-I was "B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any
   University recognized by ICAR". It is not disputed that the
   appellant was to his credit a qualification of B.Sc. wit~ Forestry
   as one of the major subjects and Masters in Forestry, i.e.
   M.Sc.(Forestry), on the date when he applied for the post in
 B question, which satisfied the eligibility criteria so far as the
   qualification was concerned.

          23. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court
   that in order to be an eligible candidate, the appellant should
 C have done B.Sc. in Forestry and since he had not done so, he
   was not considered as an eligible candidate. This reasoning,
   in our view, does not stand to any logic and is, therefore, not
   acceptable insofar as the facts of this case are concerned.

 o       24. In our considered view, firstly, if there was any
   ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification
   in the advertisement, then it should have been clarified by the
   authority concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if it
   was not clarified, then benefit should have been given to the
 E candidate rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, even
   assuming that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness
   yet we find that the appellant was admittedly having B.Sc.
   degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects in his
   graduation and further he was also having Masters degree in
 F Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry). In the light of these facts, we
   are of the view that the appellant was possessed of the
   prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and
   his application could not have been rejected treating him to
   be an ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed
 G qualification.

          25. In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry
   as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in the
   Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry) then in the absence of any
 H clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such
    PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY v. STATE OF JAMMU &                             817
       KASHMIR [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

higher qualification has to be held to possess the required A
qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring higher
qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was
sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the
prescribed qualification. It was coupled with the fact that
Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects in B
graduation, due to which he was able to do his Masters in
Forestry.

       26. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that
if the appellant is held eligible on the basis of his qualification,   C
the candidates alike him would be deprived of applying for the
said post. The argument, in our view, has no merit.

       27. In the first place, no such candidate or/and applied
for the post and secondly, the argument being wholly hypothical        o
in nature cannot be accepted.

       28. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are not in
agreement with the view taken by the High Court when it was
held that the appellant did not possess the prescribed E
qualification. This finding, as held above, is unsustainable and
thus cannot be upheld. The appeal thus succeeds and is
accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As a
c:;onsequence, the writ petition filed by the appellant succeeds
and is accordingly allowed. Since the appellant has already F
cleared the written examination and had appeared in the
interview and further one post was directed to be kept reserved
for him by the orders of the High Court in the event, the appellant
succeeds in this litigation, we consider it appropriate to direct
the respondents to issue necessary appointment order in G
favour of the appellant for the said post after ensuring
compliance of the procedural formalities within one month from
the date of receipt of this judgment.

Devika Gujral                                        Appeal allowed.   H