REPORTABLE                  

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6206   OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16567 of 2016)

Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal          .…Appellant(s) Office, Kochi & Ors.                   

Versus

Aarya K. Babu & Anr.              ….  Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6207   OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.24764 of 2016)

Syndicate Bank Ltd.        .…Appellant(s)                   

Versus

Anandu V.S.& Anr.              ….  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.S. Bopanna,J.          

      Leave granted.      

2.   In the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C)

No.16567/2016 the appellant­Bank of India is before this

                                                                                                                     Page 1 of 21

Court assailing the order dated  24.05.2016  passed in

W.A.No.313/2016.   The said appeal before the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam was filed against the order

passed in  WP(C) No.39083/2015  whereby the learned

Single  Judge  of that  High  Court  had  allowed the  writ

petition  by  an order  dated 20.01.2016.   In the  appeal

arising out of SLP(C) No.24764/2016 the appellant­

Syndicate Bank Ltd. is assailing the order dated

24.05.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.404/2016, whereby

the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala had

upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge in

WP(C)No.17403/2015 dated 20.12.2016.

3. Though in these two appeals the parties are

different, keeping in view the question arising for

consideration is the same in both these appeals and since

the High Court has disposed of the appeals through the

common order, these  two appeals are  taken up,  heard

together and disposed of by this common order.  For the

purpose of narration of facts, the case as pleaded in

SLP(C) No.16567/2016 is taken note.   In respect of the

                                                                                                                     Page 2 of 21

recruitment to be made in the Banking Sector the

respondent No.2 herein, an institute of Indian Banking

Personnel Selection (“IBPS” for short) undertakes the

process of recruitment by issue of appropriate

Notification in that regard.   

4. In the instant fact situation, the Notification dated

17.11.2014 was issued calling for applications from

interested candidates for the  different posts that  were

advertised therein.  The consideration herein relates to

the recruitment for the post of Agricultural Field Officer

(Scale­1).  The private respondents in both these appeals

are applicants for the said post.  The process of selection

was undertaken and the private respondents in both

these appeals were provisionally selected, subject to

verification of their documents and were accordingly

allotted  by the  IBPS  to the  respective  appellant  Banks

herein.   However, the selection of both the private

respondents was cancelled on the ground that the private

respondents herein did not possess the qualification

prescribed in the notification for appointment.  It is  in

                                                                                                                     Page 3 of 21

that regard the private respondents claiming to be

aggrieved by such action were before the learned Single

Judge of the Kerala High Court assailing the termination

orders in the respective writ petitions as taken note

above.   

5. The learned Single Judge on taking note that

though the requirement in the Notification was of

graduates possessing Decree in “Agro­Forestry” had

taken into consideration that the private respondents

herein had secured the 4­year Degree in “Forestry” and

held the same to be sufficient.  In that regard  the learned

Single Judge had taken note that there is no 4­year

Degree Programme being offered in this country for

“Agro­Forestry”  and  in that  background on referring to

the information furnished by the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research (“ICAR” for short) which had been

relied upon by the private respondents herein, had taken

into consideration   that as per the said institution, the

definition of Agriculture included “Forestry”.   In that

background finding the same to be an appropriate

                                                                                                                     Page 4 of 21

qualification had favourably considered the case of the

private respondents herein.  That apart it was also taken

note that the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare

as also the Ministry of Finance have subsequently taken

note of the error that there is no 4­year Course in “Agro­

Forestry” in the country and that “Agro­Forestry” is

covered comprehensively as the subject in ICAR approved

syllabus for B.Sc. in “Forestry” and that it can be

considered as the qualification for the post of Agricultural

Field Officer in Banks.   In that background, taking into

consideration all these aspects of the matter the

termination orders issued to the private respondents in

withdrawing the offer of appointment were set aside and

the appellants herein  were directed to take back the

private respondents into service.

6. The appellants herein claiming to be aggrieved by

the said decision of the  learned Single were before the

Division Bench in the appeals as referred to above.  The

Division Bench also had taken note of these aspects and

the consideration made by the learned Single Judge in

                                                                                                                     Page 5 of 21

this regard was upheld.  In the course of the proceedings

in the Writ Appeal the appellants herein had relied upon

the judgment dated 09.02.2016 passed by the High Court

of  Judicature  at  Bombay,  Nagpur  Bench at  Nagpur in

W.P.(C) No.4823/2015 titled as  Kishor Deoramji

Gahane vs. The Institute of Banking Personnel

Selection & Others.  The said judgment was cited since

the very issue relating to qualification of B.Sc. in “Agro­

Forestry” had arisen for consideration and in that

background it was also taken note therein that a

corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 had been issued whereby

the 4 year B.Sc. Degree in Forestry, Agricultural

Biotechnology,  Food Science  and Agricultural  Business

Management were also included as the recognised

educational qualification for appointment to the post of

Agricultural Field Officer (Scale­1).  In that circumstance,

in that case it was noticed that the advertisement was of

the year 2015 while the corrigendum  was issued on

16.01.2016 and in that view the Division Bench of the

Nagpur Bench had declined  the  relief to the  petitioner

                                                                                                                     Page 6 of 21

therein by holding that the qualification depicted in the

notification will be relevant.   The Division Bench of the

Kerala High Court in the present case had however,

respectfully disagreed with the said view and proceeded

to uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge

and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants herein.  It

is in that light the appellants are before this Court.   

7. In the above background we have heard Shri A.B.

Dial, learned senior counsel in the appeal arising out of

SLP(C) No.24764/2016, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned

counsel appearing in the appeal arising out of the SLP©

No.16567/2016 as also Shri Kaleeswaram Raj and Shri

Jagat Arora respective learned counsel for the

respondents.  We have also perused the appeal papers

including the impugned  judgments passed by the High

Court.

8. Though extensive arguments  were advanced the

issue lies in a very narrow compass.  The short question

for consideration is as to whether the courts would be

justified in undertaking the exercise of providing

                                                                                                                     Page 7 of 21

equivalence to another qualification so as to declare it to

be equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the

recruitment Notification by taking note of the extraneous

factors though such equivalence  of  qualification  is  not

declared  by the employer  who  makes the recruitment.

The second aspect would be as to whether any particular

educational qualification made eligible subsequent to

issue of recruitment Notification can be considered

retrospectively in respect of the recruitment process

which has commenced prior to such an additional

educational qualification being treated as eligible and the

process of recruitment in respect of such notification is

already concluded.   In that background an examination

of these aspects is necessary in the instant case.

9. The qualification prescribed for the post of

Agricultural  Field Officer (Scale­1)  as  issued under  the

Notification dated 17.11.2014 which is the subject matter

herein, is as hereunder:

“4 year Degree (graduation) in  Agriculture/

Horticulture/  Animal  Husbandry /  Veterinary

Science  /  Dairy  Science  /  Agri  Engineering  /                                                                                                                       Page 8 of 21

Fishery Science / Pisciculture / Agri Marketing

& Co­operation / Co­operation & Banking /

Agro­Forestry.”

  (emphasis supplied)

10. The private respondents herein had applied in

response to the said notification, on 24.11.2014 and

despite the private respondent in the appeal arising out

of SLP(C) No.16567/2016 had admittedly possessed the

qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) had indicated the

qualification as Agro­Forestry in the application.  Be that

as it may, the process of selection was undertaken and

appointment letter was issued to the private respondents

in the two appeals, on 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015

respectively.   In the letter of appointment, it was

specifically mentioned that the appointment is subject to

producing the original documents  which included the

proof regarding qualification.   Needless to mention that

the proof regarding qualification refers to the qualification

as depicted in the notification dated 17.11.2014.

However, since it was subsequently noticed that she did

not possess the degree in B.Sc. (Agro­Forestry), she was

                                                                                                                     Page 9 of 21

issued a show cause notice  dated 03.11.2015 and she

was terminated through the order dated 10.12.2015.   A

similar course was adopted in so far as the other private

respondent as well.   It is no doubt true that on

18.11.2015 an Office  Memorandum was  issued  by the

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department

of  Agriculture, Co­operation and Farmers Welfare (Policy

Division), whereby on taking note that no   4­year

Bachelor Program in Agro­Forestry is available in the

country and since Agro­Forestry is covered

comprehensively as a subject in the ICAR approved

syllabus for B.Sc.(Forestry), it was suggested that it will

be appropriate that B.Sc. (Forestry) graduation be

considered for the position of Agricultural Field Officer in

Banks.   Accordingly, a corrigendum dated  16.01.2016

was issued by IBPS.   It is not in dispute that based on

such decision taken, for the recruitment made

subsequently, B.Sc. (Forestry) was included as the

qualification for recruitment of Agricultural Field Officer

(Scale­I).

                                                                                                                     Page 10 of 21

11.  The issue however is, when the said qualification

was not depicted in the relevant recruitment Notification

which is the subject matter and in that circumstance if

recruitment has been wrongly made of the persons who

did not possess the qualification which was notified but

had still applied and the appointment made on that basis

is sustained, would it not be to the disadvantage of other

persons  who had possessed the same qualification of

B.Sc. (Forestry) degree but had  not applied since the

Notification did not depict the said qualification but had

indicated some other qualification.  In that regard, at the

outset it is necessary to take note that the decision of the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in

the case of Kishor Deoramji Gahane (supra) relied upon

by the appellants herein before the High Court in   fact

had addressed this  issue wherein  it  was held that  the

corrigendum issued subsequent to the advertisement

would not be beneficial,   since the petitioner therein did

not possess the qualification notified in recruitment

Notification.

                                                                                                                     Page 11 of 21

12. The learned counsel for the  private respondents

however contended that the High Court was justified in

taking  note that the  course for  Degree in  B.Sc. (Agro­

Forestry) was not being imparted in the country and in

such event  the very Notification seeking  for candidates

possessing 4­year  Degree in  B.Sc. (Agro­Forestry) was

erroneous and as such the  Degree in  B.Sc. (Forestry)

should be considered.  The learned counsel seeks to rely

upon the  Bank of India (Officers)  Service  Regulations,

1979 to contend that in Clause­16.9 thereof a reference

is made to “Special Officers” wherein it is indicated that

one of the category therein being “Agriculture Officers”,

the qualification thereunder indicated is Degree in

Agriculture and/or allied subjects and

recruited/promoted/converted as such.  In that view the

learned counsel contends that as per the information

furnished by ICAR dated 01.04.2015 the definition of

“Agriculture” would include “Forestry” and in such event

it will have to be construed that even though the

Notification seeks for candidates possessing  Degree in

                                                                                                                     Page 12 of 21

B.Sc. (Agro­Forestry) it would include B.Sc. (Forestry)

which is an allied subject of Agriculture.   

13. Though we have taken note of the said contention

we are unable to accept the same.  We are of such

opinion in view of the well­established position that it is

not for the  Court to read  into  or  assume and  thereby

include certain qualifications which have not been

included in the Notification by the employer.  Further the

rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the

respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of

officers.   That apart, even if the qualification prescribed

in the  advertisement  was contrary to the  qualification

provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been

open for the candidate concerned to challenge the

Notification alleging denial of opportunity.   On the other

hand, having taken note of the specific qualification

prescribed in the Notification it would not be open for a

candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by

such candidate is equivalent and thereby seek

consideration for appointment nor will it even be open for

                                                                                                                     Page 13 of 21

the employer to change the requirements midstream

during the ongoing selection process or accept any

qualification other than the one notified since it  would

amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the

qualification but had not applied as it was not notified.   

14. In fact, this view is fortified by the decision of this

Court in the case of  Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs.   Aligarh

Muslim University & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 555 relied on by

the learned counsel for the appellant.   In the said

decision it is held as hereunder:

24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so that there is no confusion and all  persons who could be intending candidates, should know as to what is the subject which the person is required to teach and what essential qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making application for filling up the said post.

25. We  are  not  disputing the fact that in the matter of selection of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee should be final, but at the same time, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the

                                                                                                                     Page 14 of 21

criteria/qualification in the selection process during its  midstream.  Merajuddin  Ahmad  did not possess a degree in Pure  Chemistry and therefore, it was rightly held by the High Court that he did not possess the minimum qualification required for  filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry, for Pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different subjects.

26. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Master's degree­holder in the said subject would also be suitable for being considered. There could have been intending candidates who would have applied  for becoming candidate as against the said advertised post, had they known and were informed through advertisement that Industrial Chemistry  is  also one of the qualifications  for filling up the said post.

27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage held that a Master's  degree­holder  in  Industrial  Chemistry would be better suited for  manning the said post without there being any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that the University is now manning the said post by having a person from the discipline of Pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to Pure Chemistry stream.

                                                                                                                     Page 15 of 21

If the above decision is kept in perspective it is clear that

while examining the correctness of the action of the

employer what would be sacrosanct will be the

qualification criteria published in the Notification, since if

any change made to the qualification criteria midstream

is accepted by the Court so as to benefit only the

petitioners before it,  without making  it  open to all the

qualified persons, it would amount to causing injustice to

the others who possess such qualification but had not

applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did

not possess the qualification sought for in the Notification

though they otherwise held another degree.  Therefore, if

there  is any change in qualification / criteria after the

notification is issued  but  before the completion  of the

selection process and the employer / recruiting agency

seeks to adopt the change it  will  be  incumbent on the

employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating the

changes to the notification and invite applications from

those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider

                                                                                                                     Page 16 of 21

the same along with the applications received in response

to the initial notification.   The same principle will  hold

good when a consideration is made by the Court.  

15. If  in that background the instant facts are taken

note, it would disclose that the Notification depicting the

qualification required as Degree in B.Sc. (Agro­Forestry)

was issued on 17.11.2014 and the process of selection

had come to an end when the private respondents herein

were issued the appointment letters dated  17.09.2015

and 29.05.2015 respectively.  Admittedly as on such date

the Notification required the candidates possessing B.Sc.

(Agro­Forestry) but the private respondents were

graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not

qualified to respond.   The change was made subsequent

thereto by the general corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by

including the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry), which

would be effective from that day by providing opportunity

to all those holding that qualification.  Therefore, in such

cases the change of qualification whereby the

qualification of the private respondents gets included

                                                                                                                     Page 17 of 21

subsequently cannot enure to their  benefit  alone when

several others  who  could  have  applied  were  prevented

from doing so.

16. Further it is not for the Court to provide the

equivalence relating to educational qualifications

inasmuch as the said issue has been settled by the

Constitution Bench of this Court  in the decision relied

upon by the learned counsel for the  appellants in the

case  of  Mohammad Shujat  Ali  & Ors.  vs.  Union of

India & Ors, (1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it is held that the

question in regard to equivalence of educational

qualifications is a technical question  based on  proper

assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic

standards and practical attainments of such

qualifications and where the decision of the Government

is based on the recommendation of an expert body which

possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for

adequately discharging such a function, the Court,

uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical

insights necessary for the purpose of determining

                                                                                                                     Page 18 of 21

equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the

Government.  

17.   In that backdrop, though in the instant facts

presently the qualification possessed by the private

respondents is decided to be included for the purpose of

recruitment to the post of Agricultural Field Officer, as on

the date of the recruitment Notification the same was not

included therein,  which cannot be substituted by the

Court with retrospective effect for the reasons stated

above.   Therefore, in the said circumstance, in the

present facts, the  High  Court  was  not justified in its

conclusion.   We, however, make it clear that though we

have referred to the legal position and applied the same

to the case of the parties who are before us, if in the case

of similar recruitment, the employers themselves  have

permitted  the  equivalence  and have  continued such of

those officers recruited, this decision shall not be applied

to initiate action against such officers at this distant

point of time.  Subject to the above, the orders passed by

                                                                                                                     Page 19 of 21

the High Court of Kerala which are impugned herein are

set aside.

18. Having arrived at the above conclusion  we also

take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the

private respondent in the appeal arising out of SLP©

No.16567/2016 namely Smt. Aarya K. Babu that she is

placed in a very difficult circumstances subsequent to the

discharge from service which is also due to certain set

back in  her  personal life.  Though we  do  not  wish  to

articulate the actual fact situation narrated we have no

reason to disbelieve the same, hence, we find it

appropriate that  in her case it is necessary to exercise

our discretion under Article  142 of the Constitution to

serve the ends of justice and do complete justice without

prejudicing either of the parties.   In that view, we direct

the  appellant  Bank of India to  provide appointment to

Smt. Aarya K. Babu as Agricultural Field Officer or such

other equivalent post if the vacancy exists as on today or

in the vacancy that would arise in future.  In that regard

it  is made clear that the same will  be considered as a

                                                                                                                     Page 20 of 21

fresh appointment from the date of appointment and no

previous benefit  can be claimed by her.  Further, it is

made clear that this direction is issued in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of this case and the same shall

not be treated as a precedent for any other case.

19. Subject to the above observations, both the

appeals are allowed  with no order as to costs.   All

pending applications stand disposed of.

……………………….J. (R. BANUMATHI)

……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA)

New Delhi, August 08, 2019

                                                                                                                     Page 21 of 21