The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has clarified that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of qualifications, and the power of judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrariness, or violation of Fundamental Rights.
The High Court elaborated that they cannot rewrite Service Rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the employer. Equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review, and whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State as the recruiting authority to determine.
If any such rule is absent, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower qualification. Even if a qualification of a candidate appears to be higher, he cannot claim eligibility unless the rules themselves recognize such qualification as equivalent. Recruitment rules must be strictly construed and the courts cannot dilute the eligibility criteria on the ground of perceived superiority of qualifications, added the Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Nandesh S. Deshpande observed that only because the candidates submitted online applications, appeared for the exam, and cleared the same, would not on its own vest them with any right, as per Clauses 3.15, 17.9, 17.21, and 17.22 of the Advertisement No. 01 of 2023. The Bench noted that the nomenclature of the post and the qualification prescribed therein were ambiguous, as the post advertised was “Public Health Nurse” but the prescribed qualification was of an ANM.
The Bench observed that the State, via the impugned letter dated Sep 30, 2024, made it clear that ANM, GNM, and B.Sc. (Nursing) courses are different since their eligibility, duration, and curriculum are not similar. The letter clarified that even though GNM and B.Sc. (Nursing) are higher qualifications, they cannot perform the duties of ANM, and therefore cannot be eligible for appointment of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife. The Bench further observed that the Zilla Parishad is not empowered to appoint Staff Nurse, which is the domain of the State Government, making it clear that the advertisement contemplated the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) only.
Further, the Bench observed that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of qualifications. The scope of judicial review in matters of public employment does not extend to questioning the State’s wisdom or policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for public posts, nor can the Courts rewrite Service Rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the employer.
The Bench noted that the prescription of qualifications for the post is a matter of recruitment policy, and the State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. Thus, the Bench concluded that even though there is some ambiguity in the advertisement issued by the Zilla Parishad, that cannot ipso facto cloth the petitioners with the right to be approved for the post of ANM.
Briefly, the respondent no. 4, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, published Advertisement No. 01 of 2023 concerning the direct recruitment process for Group C posts, which included 308 posts for Nurse/Health Worker (Female). The requisite qualification for the said posts was a qualified nurse registered with the Maharashtra Nursing Council or Vidarbha Nursing Council. The petitioners hold qualifications as General and Nursing Midwife (GNM) and B.Sc. (Nursing), and are registered with the Maharashtra Nursing Council.
The petitioners applied for the post via online mode, appeared for the exam conducted, and were declared qualified in the result published, which included the names of all the petitioners among the 364 qualified candidates. Following document verification from 7th to 10th August 2024, a list was published wherein only candidates having the qualification of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) were declared qualified, and the names of the petitioners having GNM and B.Sc. (Nursing) qualifications were excluded.
Upon enquiry, the petitioners were provided a letter addressed to respondent no. 4 by respondent no. 2, stating that the syllabus and durations of ANM, GNM, and B.Sc. (Nursing) are different, and though GNM and B.Sc. (Nursing) are higher qualifications, only candidates having ANM qualification are qualified for the said post.
Respondent no. 4 contended that persons holding GNM or B.Sc. (Nursing) qualifications are eligible to be appointed on the post of “Staff Nurse” under hospitals run by the State Government, and not on the post of “Auxiliary Nurse Midwife” under the Primary Health Centres under the Zilla Parishad, as the Zilla Parishad has no post of Staff Nurse. The advertisement named the post as “Public Health Nurse” but the qualification prescribed was of an ANM. The registration certificates of the petitioners reflected their registration as ‘Nurse’ or ‘Midwife’ or ‘Nurse and Midwife’, but not as ‘Auxiliary Nurse Midwife’ as mandated by the advertisement.
Appearances:
Advocates S. A. Walde, S. S. Dhengale, Nitesh Bhutekar, and A. S. Chakotkar, for the Petitioners
AGP N. R. Patil, along with Advocates H. N. Jaipurkar, B. N. Jaipurkar, A. M. Dixit, U. J. Deshpande, A.Y. Kapgate, and G.G. Mishra, for the Respondents
