Page 1

    REPORTABLE [

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CIVIL APPEAL No.  13368  OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 26131/2013)

Parvaiz Ahmad Parry …..….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Jammu & Kashmir  & Ors. ……Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment  

and  order  dated  10.05.2013  passed  by  the  High  

Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in L.P.A. No.  

102 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High  

Court  dismissed the appeal  filed by the appellant  

1

Page 2

herein  while  upholding  the  judgment  dated  

12.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of  

the High 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 infra.

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 year 2003.   

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 Rules, 1970 (in short ‘the Rules’) lays  

down  the  eligibility  qualifications  for  the  post  of  

2

Page 3

Range  Officer  Grade-I  (Forest)  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  (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 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 & K Government, that the  

SFS Colleges Diploma be treated as  equivalent  to  

3

Page 4

M.Sc. (Forestry).  In turn, on 12.03.2007, the Forest  

Department informed the same to the J.K.  Public  

Service Commission (JKPSC) endorsing the opinion  

of the FRI dated 15.02.2007.     

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  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.

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-

4

Page 5

I(Forest) on the ground that he does not possess the  

prescribed 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  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  

notification  dated  08.09.2010  and  for  further  

direction to the JKPSC 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 examination subject to the outcome of  

5

Page 6

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 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 appellant.

15. By order dated 12.11.2012, the learned Single  

Judge dismissed the writ petition.   

16. Against  by  the  said  order,  the  appellant  

preferred an appeal  being L.P.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  

6

Page 7

Grade-I  (Forest)  be  reserved  for  the  appellant.  

However,  by order dated 10.05.2013,  the Division  

Bench dismissed the appeal.   

17. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant  

preferred this appeal by way of special leave before  

this Court.   

18. Heard learned counsel for the parties.       

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  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  

7

Page 8

when  admittedly  the  appellant  was  having  B.Sc.  

degree in 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 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 pursuant to the advertisement.  

20. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents  

supported 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  

8

Page 9

find force in the 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  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  he  applied  for  the  post  in  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 have done B.Sc. in Forestry and  

since he had not done so, he was not considered as  

9

Page 10

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.  

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  

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 Forestry, i.e.,  

M.Sc.(Forestry).  In the light of these facts, we are of  

the view that the appellant  was possessed of the  

1

Page 11

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 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  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  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 Masters in Forestry.

1

Page 12

26. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  

contended that  if  the appellant is held eligible on  

the basis of  his qualification,  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  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  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  

consequence, the writ petition filed by the appellant  

succeeds  and  is  accordingly  allowed.  Since  the  

1

Page 13

appellant  has  already  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  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.

                               ……...................................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]

                                  ..……..................................J.

       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; November 06, 2015.   

1