Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Kerala High Court concerning the recruitment of Agricultural Field Officers (Scale-I) in public sector banks. The Bank of India and Syndicate Bank challenged the High Court's decision to uphold the appointment of candidates who held a B.Sc. (Forestry) degree instead of the prescribed B.Sc. (AgroForestry) degree as per the recruitment notification dated 17.11.2014. The private respondents, Aarya K. Babu and Anandu V.S., had applied and were provisionally selected, but their appointments were later cancelled when it was discovered they did not possess the required qualification. The High Court, relying on an Office Memorandum from the Ministry of Agriculture and a subsequent corrigendum issued by IBPS on 16.01.2016, held that B.Sc. (Forestry) should be considered equivalent to B.Sc. (AgroForestry) and directed the banks to reinstate the respondents. The Supreme Court framed two issues: whether courts can declare equivalence of qualifications not prescribed by the employer, and whether a subsequent corrigendum can be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the power to determine equivalence lies with the employer or expert bodies, not courts. It noted that the corrigendum was issued after the recruitment process was concluded and could not benefit candidates who applied under the earlier notification. The Court emphasized that allowing such retrospective application would prejudice other candidates who possessed B.Sc. (Forestry) but did not apply because the qualification was not listed. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the private respondents, allowing the banks' appeals.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Equivalence of Qualification - Courts cannot declare equivalence of educational qualifications not prescribed by the employer in the recruitment notification; such determination is within the domain of the employer/expert body. (Paras 8, 13-15)
B) Service Law - Recruitment - Retrospective Application of Corrigendum - A corrigendum issued after the recruitment notification and after the selection process is concluded cannot be applied retrospectively to benefit candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualification at the time of application. (Paras 8, 11, 16-17)
C) Service Law - Recruitment - Judicial Review - Courts cannot substitute their own view on equivalence of qualifications; the employer's prescription is binding unless arbitrary or mala fide. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether courts can declare a qualification equivalent to the prescribed qualification in a recruitment notification based on extraneous factors, and whether a subsequent corrigendum making additional qualifications eligible can be applied retrospectively to a concluded recruitment process.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the Kerala High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the private respondents. The Court held that the banks were justified in cancelling the appointments as the respondents did not possess the prescribed qualification at the time of application.
Law Points
- Equivalence of educational qualifications
- Recruitment notification binding
- Corrigendum not retrospective
- Judicial review limited to employer's prescription
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 6206 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16567 of 2016) and Civil Appeal No. 6207 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.24764 of 2016)
Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. (in CA 6206/2019); Syndicate Bank Ltd. (in CA 6207/2019)
Aarya K. Babu & Anr. (in CA 6206/2019); Anandu V.S. & Anr. (in CA 6207/2019)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against High Court judgment directing banks to reinstate candidates whose appointments were cancelled for lacking prescribed qualification.
Remedy Sought
Appellant banks sought setting aside of High Court orders that directed reinstatement of private respondents.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the High Court's decision to treat B.Sc. (Forestry) as equivalent to B.Sc. (AgroForestry) and to apply a subsequent corrigendum retrospectively.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge of Kerala High Court allowed writ petitions; Division Bench upheld the same. Bombay High Court in Kishor Deoramji Gahane held that corrigendum would not benefit candidates under earlier notification.
Issues
Whether courts can declare equivalence of qualifications not prescribed by the employer in the recruitment notification.
Whether a corrigendum issued after the recruitment notification can be applied retrospectively to benefit candidates who applied under the earlier notification.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the High Court erred in declaring equivalence of qualifications, which is the domain of the employer/expert body, and that the corrigendum cannot be applied retrospectively.
Respondents contended that since no 4-year degree in AgroForestry existed, B.Sc. (Forestry) should be considered equivalent, and the subsequent corrigendum supports this view.
Ratio Decidendi
The determination of equivalence of educational qualifications for recruitment is within the exclusive domain of the employer or expert bodies, and courts cannot substitute their own view. A corrigendum issued after the recruitment notification and after the selection process is concluded cannot be applied retrospectively to benefit candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualification at the time of application, as it would prejudice other eligible candidates who did not apply.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question for consideration is as to whether the courts would be justified in undertaking the exercise of providing 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.
Procedural History
The private respondents filed writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenging cancellation of their appointments. Single Judge allowed the petitions. Banks filed writ appeals, which were dismissed by the Division Bench. Banks then appealed to the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions, which were granted and converted into civil appeals.
Acts & Sections
- Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979:
