Bank not required to appoint candidate with B.Sc. Forestry for Agricultural Officer post requiring B.Sc. Agro-Forestry qualification

The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the HC's direction requiring the bank to provide appointment to the respondent as Agricultural Field Officer. The respondent applied for the post requiring B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) qualification but possessed only B.Sc. (Forestry). Although the Ministry later issued a corrigendum including B.Sc. (Forestry) as equivalent qualification, this change was made after the selection process had concluded. The SC held that courts cannot provide retrospective equivalence to qualifications not originally prescribed in the recruitment notification, as this would prejudice other eligible candidates who were prevented from applying initially.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Equivalence of educational qualifications for recruitment.
2. Retrospective application of new qualifications during an ongoing recruitment process.
3. Authority of courts to interpret or alter qualifications specified in recruitment notifications.
4. Impact of corrigendum on recruitment processes and fairness to all potential candidates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Equivalence of Educational Qualifications for Recruitment:

The core issue in this judgment revolves around whether the courts can declare a qualification as equivalent to the one prescribed in a recruitment notification. The recruitment notification dated 17.11.2014 required a 4-year degree in "Agro-Forestry" for the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-1). The private respondents, possessing a degree in "Forestry," were initially selected but later disqualified for not meeting the specified qualifications. The High Court of Kerala considered the degree in "Forestry" as equivalent, based on the lack of a specific "Agro-Forestry" program in the country and information from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) that included "Forestry" under the definition of "Agriculture." However, the Supreme Court held that it is not within the court's purview to assume or include qualifications not specified by the employer, emphasizing that equivalence is a technical question best determined by experts.

2. Retrospective Application of New Qualifications During an Ongoing Recruitment Process:

The judgment also addresses whether a new qualification, recognized after the issuance of a recruitment notification, can be applied retrospectively. A corrigendum issued on 16.01.2016 included B.Sc. (Forestry) as a qualification for the post. The Supreme Court ruled that changes in qualifications cannot benefit only those who are already part of the process, as it would disadvantage others who did not apply due to the original qualifications specified. The court emphasized that any change in qualification criteria must be followed by a corrigendum inviting applications from all eligible candidates, ensuring fairness in the selection process.

3. Authority of Courts to Interpret or Alter Qualifications Specified in Recruitment Notifications:

The court underscored that it is not the judiciary's role to alter or interpret qualifications specified in recruitment notifications. The decision referenced the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University, reiterating that selection criteria should not be changed midstream, as it could lead to unfairness and potential exclusion of qualified candidates. The judgment further cited Mohammad Shujat Ali and Ors. v. Union of India, which established that equivalence of qualifications is a technical matter beyond the court's expertise.

4. Impact of Corrigendum on Recruitment Processes and Fairness to All Potential Candidates:

The issuance of a corrigendum after the recruitment process had commenced was a significant point of contention. The Supreme Court highlighted that such changes should not apply retrospectively to benefit a select few, as it would be unjust to those who did not apply due to the initial qualifications. The court maintained that any post-notification changes should be accompanied by a new opportunity for all eligible candidates to apply, ensuring a level playing field.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the qualifications specified in recruitment notifications and ensuring fairness in the recruitment process. The court, however, exercised its discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide relief to one of the respondents due to unique personal circumstances, clarifying that this decision should not set a precedent.

---