Supreme Court Reconsiders Qualification Equivalence for Art & Craft Teachers in Haryana: Neeraj Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2023) INSC 589 (3 July 2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University is equivalent to a Diploma in Art & Craft from the Haryana Industrial Training Department for the purpose of recruitment as Art & Craft teachers.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Neeraj Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 3 July 2023

Date of the Judgment: 3 July 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 589

Judges: Krishna Murari, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J.

Can a previously rejected qualification be reconsidered for appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of Art & Craft teachers in Haryana. This case highlights the importance of recognizing equivalent qualifications in government job recruitments. The Supreme Court, in a review petition, reconsidered its earlier stance and allowed candidates with Diplomas from Kurukshetra University to be considered for appointment as Art & Craft teachers. This judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Case Background

In 2006, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued Advertisement No. 6/2006 to fill 816 posts for Art & Craft teachers. The eligibility criteria included a 2-year Diploma in Art & Craft from the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department. A dispute arose when the Director of School Education, Haryana, stated that only the Diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department was recognized, excluding Diplomas from Kurukshetra University and other universities. This led to several writ petitions being filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Initially, the High Court ruled in favor of candidates holding Diplomas from Kurukshetra University, stating that the qualification had been recognized in 1999. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision in its judgment dated 24.11.2021, asserting that the equivalence of qualifications was a matter for the State to decide. Aggrieved by this, candidates holding Diplomas from Kurukshetra University filed review petitions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial selection process under Advertisement No. 6/2006 was quashed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 20.02.2015, a decision upheld by the Division Bench on 10.10.2020. The Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition against this order on 14.12.2020. A fresh selection list was released on 14.11.2021, which included 363 candidates with Diplomas from Kurukshetra University. However, after the Supreme Court’s judgment on 24.11.2021, only 153 candidates were recommended for appointment, excluding those with Kurukshetra University Diplomas.

Following this, a batch of writ petitions was filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which directed the authorities to complete the selection process, subject to the outcome of the review petitions pending before the Supreme Court. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission then recommended 178 candidates for appointment on 27.12.2022, all of whom held Diplomas from the Haryana Industrial Training Department or other institutions, but not from Kurukshetra University. This led to the current review petitions before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the eligibility criteria in Advertisement No. 6/2006, which 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.” The dispute centered on whether the Diploma from Kurukshetra University met the criteria of an “equivalent qualification.”

The Supreme Court also considered the earlier decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 16320 of 1996, titled ‘Ram Bhagat & others vs. State of Haryana & others’, which led to the constitution of a committee to determine the equivalence of qualifications. The Haryana Government, based on the committee’s report, had issued a letter on 02.11.1999 recognizing the Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates/Examinations of Kurukshetra University for admission and recruitment purposes.

Arguments

The review petitioners argued that the Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University was equivalent to the Diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department. They relied on the Haryana Government’s letter dated 02.11.1999, which recognized qualifications from Kurukshetra University for recruitment purposes. They contended that the subsequent communication dated 12.12.2006, which excluded their qualification, was not a policy decision and was therefore invalid.

The State of Haryana initially maintained that the equivalence of qualifications was a matter for the State to decide, but later changed its stance. The State submitted that it was now willing to accept the Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University as an equivalent qualification. The State also placed on record letters from Kurukshetra University confirming the equivalence of the two diplomas, based on a comparison of the syllabus and standards.

The candidates who were appointed pursuant to the second recommendation letter dated 27.12.2022 argued that their appointments should not be disturbed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the core question of whether the Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University should be considered equivalent to the Diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department for the purpose of recruitment. The sub-issue was whether the candidates holding Diploma from Kurukshetra University should be accommodated.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Ram Bhagat & others vs. State of Haryana & others (CWP No. 16320 of 1996) – Punjab & Haryana High Court: This case led to the constitution of a committee to determine the equivalence of qualifications.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Advertisement No. 6/2006 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission which specified the eligibility criteria for the posts of Art & Craft Teachers.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the State of Haryana’s willingness to accept the equivalence of the Diplomas from Kurukshetra University and the Haryana Industrial Training Department. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the candidates with Kurukshetra University Diplomas were already included in the selection list dated 14.11.2021. The Court was also mindful of the fact that appointments made on 27.12.2022 should not be disturbed.

The Court’s reasoning can be visualized as follows:

The Court stated, “it is now the admitted position that the Government of Haryana is willing to accept the Diploma in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University as an equivalent qualification to the Diploma in Art & Craft secured from Haryana Industrial Training Department.” The Court further noted, “As it is no longer in issue that the Diplomas in Art & Craft secured from Kurukshetra University by the 667 candidates in the selection list dated 14.11.2021 stand on par with the Diploma in Art & Craft from Haryana Industrial Training Department, there would be no hindrance to their being considered for appointment.” The Court also clarified, “Appointments to be made pursuant to this judgment would have to be limited to the vacant posts notified under Advertisement No.6/2006 and cannot be extended to later vacancies which have arisen thereafter.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court allowed candidates with Diplomas in Art & Craft from Kurukshetra University to be considered for appointment as Art & Craft teachers in Haryana.
• The Court emphasized that equivalence of qualifications can be reconsidered based on the State’s acceptance and supporting evidence.
• The appointments of 178 candidates made on 27.12.2022 were protected.
• Appointments should be made based on the merit ranking in the selection list dated 14.11.2021.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the authorities to complete the appointment process expeditiously, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State can reconsider its stance on the equivalence of qualifications for recruitment purposes, and that such reconsideration should be based on valid reasons and supporting evidence. This case also clarifies that appointments made in the intervening period should not be disturbed while accommodating the candidates who were initially excluded due to non-equivalence of qualification.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Neeraj Kumar vs. State of Haryana is a significant development in service law. It demonstrates the Court’s willingness to reconsider its previous decisions in light of new evidence and the evolving stance of the State. The Court’s decision ensures that qualified candidates are not denied opportunities for employment due to technicalities in the recognition of equivalent qualifications. This case also protects the interests of candidates who were already appointed.