G.S Sandhawalia J. (ORAL)
1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6544 & 8563 of 2007, involving common questions of facts and law. However, to dictate order, facts have been taken from CWP No. 6544 of 2007 titled Rohtash v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
2. Prayer in the present writ petition is for interviewing the petitioner for the post of Veterinary and Livestock Development Assistant and for recognition of the Diploma in Livestock and Veterinary Science, issued from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahar, Churu, Rajasthan.
3. The plea of the State, on the other hand, is that for eligibility to the said post, as per the service rules, Diploma from a recognized University in Veterinary & Livestock Development is required and the Diploma obtained by the petitioner from the said Institute in Rajasthan cannot be considered since it is not a recognized Diploma by the Department of Animal Husbandry. Further, it has been mentioned that the Diploma which is conducted by the Chaudhary Charan Singh Agricultural University, Hissar, has 14 subjects which are to be taught whereas in Rajasthan, only 8 subjects have been taught, details of which have been given in the written statement filed by respondent No. 3. The qualification had been prescribed for the said posts as per the Haryana Government Gazette which reads as under:
“i) Matric or its equivalent from any recognized University/Board/Institution;
ii) Two years Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant diploma course from any recognized University;
iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard.”
4. It is further submitted that the Committee was also constituted to take into consideration the equivalency part and as per its report dated 20.09.2007 (Annexure R1), it did not approve of the said Institute and the Diploma certificates issued by the said Institute was considered insufficient, as compared with the Diplomas issued by the Chaudhary Charan Singh University.
5. It is settled principle of law that the decision of equivalency and academic experts is not to be gone into by this Court. Reference can be safely made to All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan(2009) 11 SCC 726 & Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L Ramesh2010 (4) RSJ 154. The relevant observations read as under:-
“We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.”
6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioners as it is not for this Court to opine as to whether the courses are equivalent. The State Government had constituted a Committee to look into this aspect and in view of that, no benefit could be granted. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.