2019 INSC 0660                          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   Degree   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