Policy Matters - Litigating Hand

Rajiv Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. [MANU/PH/1778/2010]: Punjab and Haryana High Court

It is not for the Courts to undertake an exercise of equating one qualification with the other

13. On a broader principle also the petitioners would not be able to succeed. It is not for the Courts to undertake an exercise of equating one qualification with the other. The issue does not call for detailed consideration because it stands settled more than three decades ago by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India MANU/SC/0371/1974 : (1975) 3 SCC 76. On the issue of equation of qualification it has been laid down in para 13 of the judgment that the subject of equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards. It involves practical attainments of such qualifications and the experts are required to aid in deciding the issue. The Court being not an expert and armed with relevant data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not undertake such a task unless it emanates from mala fide, extraneous considerations or so irrational or perverse that a reasonable person would not accept the same. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun MANU/SC/0591/2002 : (2002) 6 SCC 252, wherein it has been held that prescribing minimum educational qualification for admission to a course and recognising certain educational qualification as equivalent to or higher than the prescribed one, involves a policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with the power under any statute. Discussing the scope of interference by the courts, it has been further laid down in para 10 that there is a limited scope to interfere by the Courts which could examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rationale and reasonable ground or such a decision is arbitrary and is informed by extraneous consideration or mala fide intention. On facts, precedents and principles the petitioners have no case and the petition is liable to be dismissed.