1

AFR

RESERVED

Court No. - 4

1.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24273 of 2018

Petitioner :- Deepak Singh And 9 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare, Shri Ashok

Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Archit Mandhyan, Kailash Singh

Kushwaha, Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, Sunil Kumar Misra,Vipin Kumar

Singh,Vivek Saran

WITH

2.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1133 of 2018

Appellant :- Yogendra Singh Rana And 6 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare, Shiv Kumar Maurya, Shri

Ashok Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Seemant

Singh

WITH

3.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1192 of 2018

Appellant :- Prabhat Kumar Chauhan

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Shantanu Khare, Shri Ashok Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., K.S. Kushwaha

WITH

4.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1246 of 2018

Appellant :- Premjeet Yadav

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Yadav, Sudhakar Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

+eutralt–itationt+owtutEVHJB(x–BEHJEY5u”)

2

5.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1258 of 2018

Appellant :- Tanveer Alam And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Vinod Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

6.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1274 of 2018

Appellant :- Alok Kumar Srivastava

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kant Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

WITH

7. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 9 of 2019

Appellant :- Himani Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Bans Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

8.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 184 of 2019

Appellant :- Ashish Mishra And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

9.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 289 of 2019

Appellant :- Ajaz Ahmed @ Ajaz Amahad Khan

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Shamim,Gautam

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

3

10.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 415 of 2019

Appellant :- Sarita Yadav

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Yadav, I. N. Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

11.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 671 of 2009

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pushpendra Singh, V.P. Mathur

WITH

12.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21453 of 2018

Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Tiwari And 3 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

13.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25236 of 2018

Petitioner :- Saurabh Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Madan Mohan Chaurasisa

WITH

14.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25790 of 2018

Petitioner :- Shubham Shukla And 3 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Pranjal

Mehrotra, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Vivek Saran

WITH

4

15.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 485 of 2019

Petitioner :- Bhartendu

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

WITH

16.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 885 of 2018

Appellant :- Ritika Chauhan And 10 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Shantanu Khare, Sri Ashok Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

17. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 895 of 2018

Appellant :- Bharat Singh Chauhan And 3 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare, Shri Ashok Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

18.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 897 of 2018

Appellant :- Amit Kumar And 5 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Seemant

Singh

WITH

19.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 905 of 2018

Appellant :- Chandan Singh Yadav And 3 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Ajay Singh Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

5

20.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 925 of 2018

Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav

Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra, Shesh Narain Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

WITH

21.Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 929 of 2018

Appellant :- Manish Nigam

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Nigam

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Kailash Singh Kushwaha

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Judgement Text :-

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Questions arising and framed in the following three orders are

referred to this Bench for its considerations: (i) order dated 29.11.2018

passed in Writ – A No. 24273 of 2018 (Deepak Singh And 9 others vs.

State of U.P. and 8 others), (ii) order dated 12.1.2009 passed in Civil

Misc. Writ Petition No. 671 of 2009 (Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P.

and another) and (iii) order dated 15.2.2019 passed in Special Appeal No.

09 of 2019 (Himan Singh vs. State of U.P. and 8 others).

In Writ A No. 24273 of 2018, the learned Single Judge was

confronted with the question as to whether degree holders in Engineering

Discipline would be eligible for seeking appointment to the post of Junior

Engineer and Foreman wherein the essential eligibility criteria specified,

was “Diploma Holders in Engineering Discipline”. The learned Single

Judge took note of the fact that the Commission issued a Notification for

selection of Junior Engineers and Foreman, the advertisement specified

the eligibility for selection to the post of Junior Engineers and Foreman as

6

“Diploma Holders in Engineering Discipline”. The petitioners, in the said

petition, were admittedly degree holders in Engineering and agitated that

they have been wrongly ousted as being degree holders in Engineering,

they were higher than diploma holders in Engineering Discipline and as

such they ought to have been considered as eligible. The Commission had

cited before the learned Single Judge that this Court, in Service Single

No. 6655 of 2016 (Alok Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P.) and as affirmed

by a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 229 of 2016 (Kartikey vs.

State of U.P.) to buttress the proposition that the degree holders were

rightly ousted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therein, on the other hand, had

argued that the said two judgements relied upon by the Commission

should be held as not having laid down the correct proposition of law, in

the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Parvaiz Ahmad

Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2016 (1) ESC 54 (SC).

Learned Single Judge, in his referring order dated 29.11.2018, held

that the decision in the case of Alok Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. relied

upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. And

others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and others, 2010 15

SCC 596. The said judgement, rendered in the case of Alok Kumar

Mishra (supra), was upheld in an appeal in the case of Kartikey vs. State

of U.P. and was also upheld in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.

17219 of 2016. The learned Single Judge noted the argument of learned

counsel for the petitioner that the judgement of the Hon'ble apex Court in

the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry was a clear authority for the

proposition that a higher qualification cannot be viewed as

disqualification and consequently it must be held that the degree holders

cannot be ousted. Learned Single Judge further recorded that in the case

of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry the question raised before the Supreme Court

was whether a person who is holding a degree of M.Sc. in forestry would

be eligible to apply for a post where the minimum requirement was B.Sc.

7

in the subject concerned.

In the backdrop of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of

Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, the

learned Single Judge referred the matter to the present larger Bench

framing the following questions:

A. Whether a Degree in the field in question is entitled

to be viewed as a higher qualification when compared

to a Diploma in that field?

B. Whether the decisions in Alok Kumar Mishra and

Kartikey lay down the correct position in law when

they hold that a Degree holder is excluded from the

zone of consideration for appointment as a Junior

Engineer?

C. Whether a degree holder can be held to be

ineligible to participate in a selection process for

Junior Engineer in light of the relevant statutory rules?

D. Whether the exclusion of degree holders from the

zone of consideration would meet the tests as

propounded by the Supreme Court in State of

Uttarakhand Vs. Deep Chandra Tewari?

The second reference order was passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition

No. 671 of 2009 wherein the learned Single Judge was posed with the

question regarding the appointment to the post of Junior Engineers

advertised vide Advertisement dated 29.12.2007 wherein the petitioners

were found to be ineligible as they were degree holders whereas the

eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)

Irrigation was “Diploma in Engineering”.

The learned Single Judge disagreed with another judgement

rendered by a Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7012 (S/S) of 2001

(Annup Ratan Awasthi vs. Public Service Commission, Allahabad &

Ors.) wherein the learned Single Judge held that the degree holders were

not eligible for the said post. The learned Single Judge while referring the

matter to the larger Bench disagreed with the learned Single Judge

judgement given in the case of Annup Ratan Awasthi for the following

reasons:

8

“(1) The petitioner as a graduate engineer with B.E. in

Civil Engineering from University of Pune (1994) has

earlier applied for the post of Junior Engineer in the

Minor Irrigation Department in pursuance to the

Advertisement No. 3 of 1998-99. He was selected for

appointment and was allotted hill cadre, which later

fell in the State of Uttarnchal. The U.P. Public Service

Commission or the State Government did not reject his

candidature on the ground that he did not possess the

requisite qualifications. The Supreme Court has vide

judgement in State of Uttaranchal vs. Siddharth

Srivastava & Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 336 and the

judgement in the State of U.P. vs. Raj Kumar Sharma

& Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1433 of 2006, dated March

3

rd

, 2006 directed that since all the post in the plain

cadre has been filled up there was no scope for

appointment of non-official respondents. The

relaxation was given for a period of three years for

applicants, when applications were invited for

selection by UPPSC or Uttaranchal State Public

Service Commission. The relaxation is to be granted

when fresh applications are invited. The U.P. Public

Service Commission and the State of U.P. are therefore

stopped on the principles of constructive resjudicata to

question the qualification of the petitioner to appear in

the subject selections. The question whether the

petitioner holds minimum qualification or required

qualification was neither raised for considered and

thus the UPPSC and the State Government cannot be

permitted to raise the plea again and to reject the

candidature of the petitioner.

(2) A graduate degree in Civil Engineering is a higher

qualification possessed by candidate for the post than

the qualification prescribed under the rules. A

candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be

discriminated and held ineligible on the ground that

he does not possess required qualifications.

(3)In T.R. Katha N. Daraman vs. Tamil Nadu

Water and Drainage Board, (1994) & SCC 282 it was

held that a harmony has to be struck in maintaining

reasonableness in the ratio between the call of the

social justice and the need of higher education without

in any way jeopardising the principal object of

qualification. The reasonableness of the ratio will

depend upon the facts of each case. In this case the

graduate engineer is not claiming any benefit,

weightage or preference in appointment to the post of

Junior Engineers. They are claiming to be eligible as

they hold higher qualification in the subject, which is

being treated as required qualification.

9

(4)In Union of India Vs. D. Sundera Rama,

(1997) 4 SCC 664 the Supreme Court upheld the

shortlisting of the candidates possessing higher

qualification. It was held that prescribed essential

qualification is minimum qualification and that mere

possession of minimum qualification does not entitle a

candidate to be called for interview.

(5)A large number of State and private

engineering colleges are turning out thousands of

graduate engineers. They are finding it difficult to get

jobs. The Courts have to balance their rights to be

qualified for the jobs for which a lower qualification is

the essential qualification. It would not serve public

interest to allow graduate engineers to remain

unemployed and to offer jobs of Junior Engineer to

diploma holders.

(6)There has been a gradual fall of standards in

education and quality of work performed by Junior

Engineers. With the availability of large number of

graduate engineers the department may find persons

with higher qualifications, more competent and

suitable for the post of Junior Engineers. It is admitted

that the job of Junior Engineers can be performed by

degree holders and that it is not necessary that only a

diploma holder is suitable for the job.”

In view of the difference of opinion expressed on the reasons given as

above, the matter is referred to the larger Bench. The papers shall be

placed by the officer before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to nominate a

larger bench to decide the matter.

The third matter referred before this Court arises out of order

15.02.2019 wherein the Division Bench of this Court allowed a review

application in Special Appeal No. 9 of 2019 (Himani Singh Vs. State of

U.P. and 5 others). The question that arose in the said case, was that the

petitioner held a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application and had

applied for selection in the Group 'A' and 'B' Post pursuant to the

Advertisement of the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission,

Lucknow wherein the eligibility criteria was possessing 'O' level Diploma

in Computer Application. The Division Bench while allowing the review

application also referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Parvaiz

Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others and was also

10

impressed by the argument that a similar question has already been

referred to the larger Bench by order dated 5.12.2018 in in Writ Petition

No. 24273 of 2018.

We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri

Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by

Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Suresh Singh,

learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Hari Keshav, Standing

Counsel and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of the State as well as Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha,

learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission.

Before we advert to the arguments raised at the bar, it is essential to

note the facts in brief in Writ Petition No. 24273 of 2018. The U.P.

Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow notified the

Combined Junior Engineer Sanganak and Foreman (General Recruitment)

Competitive Examination-2018. In the note of the said advertisement, it

was provided as under:

fo'ks"k uksV %&

fjV ;kfpdk la[;k & 6655 vkQ 2016 ,oa vU; fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa

ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 02-05-2016 ds dze es voxr

djkuk gS fd lfEefyr voj vfHk;Urk] lax.kd ,oa QksjeSu ¼lkekU; p;u½

izfr;ksxkRed ijh{kk & 2018 ds vUrxZr foKkfir inksa gsrq fMIyksek/kkjd vH;FkhZ

gh ik= gS] blds brj mDr in gsrq fMxzh/kkjd vH;FkhZ ik= ugh gSA vrj

fMxzh/kkjd vH;FkhZ vkosnu u djsa^^

This advertisement itself specifically provided eligibility to

candidates having diploma in Civil/Electrical/mechanical Engineering

alone. The petitioners were aggrieved as they were possessing Graduate

Degree in Civil/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering and were excluded for

being considered under the said advertisement, which led to the filing of

the writ petition and subsequent reference order dated 29.11.2018.

11

Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel, argued that in a procedure for

Combined Selection for several departments, the recruitment rules of each

department separately specify the qualifications, with regard to some of

the departments, the qualification of Diploma in Engineering is specified

as “minimum qualification”, while with regard to other department,

diploma in Engineering is specified as “required qualification” and as the

petitioners were applicants for some of the departments where the

Diploma in Engineering was also specified at the “minimum

qualification”, a higher qualification cannot be a bar for them being

considered for appointment. Sri Ashok Khare, in the alternative, submits

that even with regard to the departments where the qualification is the

only specified qualification even then such specification does not exclude

the higher qualifications in the same stream of studies. He has relied upon

the following judgements:

(i)2006 (11) SCC 153

(State of Haryana v. Abdul Gaffar Khan)

(ii)2013 (15) SCC 557

(State of Uttrakhand v. Deep Chand Tiwari)

(iii)2010 (15) SCC 596

(Jyoti K.K. & others V Kerala Public Service Commission)

(iv)2016 (1) ESC 54 (SC)

(Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others)

(v)Judgement of learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2016 passed in

Writ-A No. 30313 of 2016 (Abha Tripathi & Ors. vs. State of U.P.

& Ors.)

(vi)2011 (1) ESC 115 (A full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High

Court) (Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.)

(vii)(2019) 2 SCC 404

(Zahur Ahmad v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad)

(viii)2015 (2) SCC 170

(State of Punjab v. Anita)

(ix)2012 (3) SCC 129

(Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan)

(x)2000 (2) SCC 606

12

(Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District & Sessions Judge)

(xi)2003 (3) SCC 541

(P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala)

(xii)2003 (3) SCC 548

(Yogesh Kumar vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory)

(xiii)2002 10 SCC 588

(Rajpal v. State of Haryana)

(xiv)2005 (7) SCC 567

(Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. Chairman)

Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, on the

other hand, has placed extensive reliance upon the case of Zahoor

Ahmad Rather (Supra). He has further argued that Graduation in

Engineering cannot be termed as a qualification in progression of

Diploma in Engineering. He asserts that the curriculum for Diploma in

Engineering is very different in relation to curriculum for Graduation in

Engineering. He further submits that it is the recruitment body which has

the sole discretion of specifying the eligibility criteria and the same

cannot be faulted with.

In view of the submissions made at the bar and the judgements

relied upon, the first two questions being Question Nos. A & B in

referring order dated 29.11.2018 and the question referred in WRIT - A

No. 671 of 2009 are being taken up together and a decision is to be

recorded as to whether a degree in the field in question will be viewed as

a higher qualification when compared to that diploma in that field.

A diploma in engineering essentially is designed to impart practical

aspect of the engineering and the mere perusal of the syllabus reveals that

the Diploma in Engineering is aimed to equip the candidates, who can

cater to the practical requirement of engineering with emphasis on the

practical works. In short, it aims to train persons for execution of the

works and handling of equipments, etc. whereas the graduates in

Engineering are taught with syllabus which provides theoretical training

in the field of Engineering with low emphasis on the practical part of the

13

engineering.

In India, Diploma Course in Engineering, is offered to the students

and is a short duration course with the focus on training a person in a

particular field. The curriculum includes basic theoretical knowledge and

extensive practical knowledge and the diploma can be conferred by

various institutes who may or may not be affiliated to the University

Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to 'UGC') or All India Council

for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to 'AICTE'). The same can

be offered even to students after passing their Class-X Examination, in

contrast, the Bachelor in Technical Education is offered to students after

their completion of Class-XII Examination. A 'degree' can be granted only

by the Institutes affiliated to UGC or AICTE. The duration of the course

is longer (at present 4 years) and the emphasis in the curriculum is on

academics. Thus, in India, focus and the aim of the two streams of

education is entirely different with stress on extensive practical

knowledge in the case of diploma holders and major emphasis on

academic in the case of degree holders. Thus, the Diploma in Engineering

and Degree in Engineering cater to different situations and, in view

thereof, a degree in the field, in question, cannot be viewed as a higher

qualification when compared to a diploma in that field.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, in his usual eloquence,

has taken us through the various judgements, he has relied upon in State

of Haryana v. Abdul Gaffar Khan, 2006 (11) SCC 153 wherein the

Apex Court was confronted with the selection to the post of Unani

Dispenser wherein the educational qualification prescribed was:

(i) Unani Dispenser from any recognised University/Institution or

Board or Faculty of Indian System of Medicine established by law

in India or Up-Vaidya having the knowledge of Urdu:

(ii) Matric or its equivalent.

(iii) Knowledge of Hindi and English upto Matric standard.

14

The respondents, in the said matter, possessed a qualification of

Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery from Kanpur University and

were denied appointment for the reasons that they did not possess the

qualification of Dispenser of Unani Medicine or Up-Vaidya from a

recognised university. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with

submissions recorded as under:

“We have perused the order passed by the High Court.

As rightly pointed by the High Court and as per

Haryana Ayurvedic/Homeopathic and Unani Technical

Group (C) Service Rules, 1997, they do not expressly

exclude the degree in Unani Medicine and Surgery for

the post of Unani Dispenser. Admittedly, the respective

contesting respondents in these appeals possess

required qualifications from a recognized

University/Institution or Board and are thus, in our

opinion, eligible for appointment to the posts of Unani

Dispenser. A close scrutiny of the advertisement issued

does not anywhere stipulate the diploma as the

required qualification. We, therefore, affirm the order

passed by the High Court and direct the appellant-

State of Haryana to appoint the respective respondents

to the posts of Unani Dispenser within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of the order from this

Court or on production of the same by the respective

respondents herein whichever is earlier. The appeals

are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as

to costs.”

We are afraid that the said judgement has no application to the facts

of the present case inasmuch as in the present case the specified required

qualification was “Diploma in Engineering” and Degree Holders were

specifically excluded.

The next case relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare is State of

Uttarakhand and others vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another,

(2013) 15 SCC 557. In this case, the Apex Court was confronted with a

case where the requirement for appointment as a Assistant Teacher was

Bachelor's Degree in any of two subjects Geography, Economics,

Political Science and History from any University established by law in

India whereas the respondents had the qualification of B.Ed. with

specialization in vocational education. It was argued before the Hon'ble

15

Supreme Court that there is no marked difference between B.Ed. degree

and the B.Ed. degree with specialisation in vocational education. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“We notice, however, for the post in question i.e.

Assistant Teacher (General), the qualification is

simply Bachelor's degree in any of two subjects,

Geography, Economics, Political Science and History

from any unitersity established by law in India, or LT

Diploma from any training institution/degree college.

If B.Ed with specialisation in vocational education

was the required qualification, then it would have

been specifically mentioned in the notification, which

has not been done. Consequently, we have to take it

that the B.Ed degree mentioned in the advertisement is

B.Ed degree simpliciter, and not B.Ed with

specialisation in vocational education. The post to be

filled up ie. Assistant Teacher (General) nowhere

indicates that for the purpose of appointment to the

said post, specialisation in vocational education is a

necessary requirement.”

Although a question raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was

with regard to the difference in between B.Ed. with specialisation in

vocational course and B.Ed. in specified subjects, the Supreme Court

recorded the general principle as under:

“We are conscious of the principle that when

particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the

candidature of a candidate possessing higher

qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. No

doubt, normal rule would be that candidate with

higher qualification is deemed to fulfil the lower

qualification prescribed for a post. But that higher

qualification has to be in the same channel. Further,

this rule will be subject to an exception. Where the

prescription of a particular qualification is found to

be relevant for discharging the functions of that post

and at the same time, the Government is able to

demonstrate that for want of the said qualification a

candidate may not be suitable for the post, even if he

possesses a “better” qualification but that “better”

qualification has no relevance with the function

attached with the post.”

The Apex Court, further, while allowing the appeal, held as under:

“In the present case, we find the situation falling in

16

this excepted category. As pointed out above, the

Assistant Teacher is meant to impart education to

students at primary level. For teaching primary

students, subjects studied while doing basic BEd

degree would be relevant and appropriate. For

teaching such students, BEd with specialisation in

vocational education would be of no use as those

students are not imparted vocational education,

which is the thrust in the degree obtained by the

respondents herein. In the instant case, proficiency in

the basic subjects taught at primary level is required

and thus vocational training would not serve any

purpose. Thus, when we find that in the instant case,

essential education qualification is BEd degree which

is prescribed in the relevant rules, having statutory

flavour, the action of the Government cannot be

faulted with, in rejecting the candidature of the

respondents because of the reason that they do not

have the qualification, as mentioned in the

advertisement viz. BEd degree simpliciter.”

The above referred case relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare, in fact,

strengthens the proposition that where the qualification is specified, there

should be no deviation from the said specified requirement.

The next case relied upon by Sri Khare is Jyoti K.K. And others

vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and others, (2010) 15 SCC 596.

In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was confronted with the question

pertaining to the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State

Electricity Board as per the Notification dated 21.6.1994 which provided

for the following qualifications:

" 1. SSLC or its equivalent

2. Technical qualifications -

(a) Diploma in electrical engineering of a recognised

institution after 3 years course of study.

Or

(b) A certificate in electrical engineering from any

one of the recognised technical school's shown below

with five years service under Kerala State Electricity

Board.

17

( Not fully extracted as not relevant) Or

(c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power

(higher) with five years experience as II grade

overseer (electrical) under the Board."

The appellants, before the Supreme Court, were holders of B.Tech.

degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelor's degree in Electrical

Engineering were non-suited by the Commission. The Apex Court relied

upon Rule 10 (a)(ii) which was as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules

or in the special rules, the qualifications recognised

by executive orders or standing orders of government

as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in

the special rules and such of those higher

qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the

lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also

be sufficient for the post."

On the basis of the said Rule 10 (a)(ii) of the Kerala State and

Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, the Apex Court held as under:

“It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that

when a qualification has been set out under the

relevant rules, the same cannot be in any manner

whittled down and a different qualification cannot be

adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating

that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or

presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification

prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of

the rule to the effect that such of those higher

qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the

lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also

be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired

higher qualifications in the same faculty, such

qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose

the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed

for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to

seek far.

Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant

engineer, degree in electrical engineering of Kerala

University or other equivalent qualification

recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed.

For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be

held, the qualification that has to be obtained,

obviously gives an indication that such qualification

is definitely higher qualification than what is

18

prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of sub-

engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification

of degree in electrical engineering presupposes the

acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in

that subject prescribed for the post, shall be

considered to be sufficient for that post.”

The Court also noted that there was no exclusion to candidates to

possess a higher qualification. The above referred decision in Jyoti K.K.

(supra) turned on the provisions of Rule 10 (a)(ii). In the present case,

there is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said

Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a

higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower

qualifications prescribed for the post. In the present case, there being no

such Rule, we are afraid that the presumption is not available to the

petitioners.

The next case relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare in Parvaiz Ahmad

Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, [2016 (1) ESC 54

(SC)]. In the said case, the matter related to appointment to the post of J

& K Forest Service Range Officers, Grade-I, wherein the prescribed

qualification was B.Sc. (Forestry) or its equivalent from any University

recognised by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter

referred to as the 'ICAR'). The appellants, in the said case, had a

qualification of B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the major subjects and

Master in Forestry i.e. M.Sc. (Forestry) on the date when he applied for

the post in question, the Apex Court allowed the appeal holding as under:

“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.,

19

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

the view that the appellant was possessed of the

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.

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.”

The said case has no applicability to the facts of the present case

inasmuch as Diploma in Engineering and B.Tech in Engineering are two

different courses and thus the ratio of the judgement in the case of

Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others has

no applicability to the facts of the present case.

Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel, has next relied upon a Full

Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh vs.

State of Punjab and others, [2011 (1) 115 (P&H) (FB)]. In the said

case, the advertisement for appointment to the post of the Physical

Training Instructor, the minimum qualification prescribed was C.P.Ed.

whereas the candidates possessing B.P.Ed or M.P.Ed. were rejected. The

Punjab and Haryana Full Bench held as under:

“From the facts on record and dictum of above

noticed judgements, it emerges that the candidate

possessing higher qualification in the same line

cannot be excluded from consideration for selection.

It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled

to any additional weightage for higher qualification,

but cannot be denied consideration at par with a

candidate possessing minimum prescribed

qualification. Denying consideration to a candidate

having better and higher qualification in the same

20

line and discipline would definitely result in breach

of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

Thus, higher qualification in same line is the guiding factor. In the

present case, we have already held that Diploma in Engineering is not in

same line as Graduate in Engineering

The next case relied upon by Sri Khare is the judgement of the

Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh

Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404. The Apex Court was

confronted with the question regarding the appointment to the post of

Technician III wherein the qualification prescribed was Matriculation

with ITI in Electrical Trade whereas the persons non-suited were Diploma

Holders in Electrical Engineering/Electronics & Communication. The

Apex Court, after discussing the various judgements including the

judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra), held as

under:

“While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the

State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind

several features including the nature of the job, the

aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of

duties, the functionality of a qualification and the

content of the course of studies which leads up to the

acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted

with the authority to assess the needs of its public

services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law,

fall within the domain of administrative decision

making. The state as a public employer may well

take into account social perspectives that require the

creation of job opportunities across the societal

structure. All these are essentially matters of policy.

Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the

decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the

context of a specific statutory rule under which the

holding of a higher qualification which presupposes

the acquisition of a lower qualification was

considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the

context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK

turned.

Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact

that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain

lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the

matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the

21

description of candidates who had secured an ITI

certification before seeking a lateral entry to a

diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is

required, a person who does not hold that

qualification is not eligible.

The submission based on Note 12, urged by Ms

Wadia, cannot be accepted. The stipulation that the

qualification prescribed is the bare minimum

requirement of the job emphasises that it is an

essential requirement, a threshold which cannot be

dispensed with. Under Note 12, the Board is entitled

to assign additional weightage for a higher

qualification. Whether such a weightage should be

assigned is a matter for the Board to determine. The

SSSB did not assign an additional weightage for a

higher qualification. In not exercising an enabling

power, no fault can be found with the SSSB. An

enabling provision postulates a discretion which

may or may not be exercised. A candidate has no

vested right to assert that the Board must as a

mandate assign an additional weightage to a higher

qualification. Whether to do so or not is a matter for

the Board to determine. All that Note 12 postulates

is that the mere possession of the prescribed

qualification will not entitle a candidate to be called

for the written test or interview. The Board may

shortlist among eligible candidates by granting a

weightage to a higher qualification in the relevant

line or discipline. But the words "as may be decided

by the Board" in Note 12 indicate that the Board is

vested with a discretion in pursuance of an enabling

power which it may or may not exercise.”

Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel, submits that the said judgement

in the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra) failed to take into account the earlier

decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court and the law

declared by the Coordinate Benches will have to be treated as a binding

precedent. He has placed reliance upon the case of Shanker Raju vs.

Union of India, 2011 (2) SCC 132 and the judgement of the Apex Court

in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bapna Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014

(16) SCC 263 to press that the judgement in the case of Zahoor Ahmad

(supra) should not be followed by this Court. To test the said argument of

Sri Ashok Khare, it is essential to revert to the judgement of the Apex

Court in the case of Shanker Raju (supra) wherein the Supreme Court

22

held as under:

“(9). It is a settled principle of law that a judgment,

which has held the field for a long time, should not

be unsettled. The doctrine of stare decisis is

expressed in the maxim "stare decisis et non quieta

movere", which means "to stand by decisions and

not to disturb what is settled." Lord Coke aptly

described this in his classic English version as

"those things which have been so often adjudged

ought to rest in peace." The underlying logic of this

doctrine is to maintain consistency and avoid

uncertainty. The guiding philosophy is that a view

which has held the field for a long time should not

be disturbed only because another view is possible.

This has been aptly pointed out by Chandrachud,

C.J. In Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2

SCC 362 at pg. 392 thus:

"40. ... for the application of the rule of stare decisis,

it is not necessary that the earlier decision or

decisions of longstanding should have considered

and either accepted or rejected the particular

argument which is advanced in the case on hand.

Were it so, the previous decisions could more easily

be treated as binding by applying the law of

precedent and it will be unnecessary to take resort to

the principle of stare decisis. It is, therefore,

sufficient for invoking the rule of stare decisis that a

certain decision was arrived at on a question which

arose or was argued, no matter on what reason the

decision rests or what is the basis of the decision. In

other words, for the purpose of applying the rule of

stare decisis, it is unnecessary to enquire or

determine as to what was the rationale of the earlier

decision which is said to operate as stare decisis."

(10) In Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Regional

Asstt. CST, (1976) 4 SCC 124, at page 127, it was

opined that the doctrine of stare decisis is a very

valuable principle of precedent which cannot be

departed from unless there are extraordinary or

special reasons to do so.

In the other case, Sandeep Kumar Bapna Vs. State of

Maharashtra as cited by Sri Khare, the Supreme Court has held as

under:

“19. It cannot be over-emphasised that the

discipline demanded by a precedent or the

disqualification or diminution of a decision on the

23

application of the per incuriam rule is of great

importance, since without it, certainty of law,

consistency of rulings and comity of Courts would

become a costly casualty. A decision or judgment

can be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule

or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of

the Court. A decision or judgment can also be per

incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio

with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a

Co-equal or Larger Bench; or if the decision of a

High Court is not in consonance with the views of

this Court. It must immediately be clarified that the

per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable

to the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta. It is

often encountered in High Courts that two or more

mutually irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme

Court are cited at the Bar. We think that the

inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest view as

the succeeding ones would fall in the category of per

incuriam. Validation of Ratio in Niranjan Singh:

20. We must now discuss in detail the decision of a

Two-Judge Bench in Rashmi Rekha Thatoi vs. State

of Orissa, (2012) 5 SCC 690, for the reason that in

the impugned Order the Single Judge of the High

Court has proclaimed, which word we used

intentionally, that Niranjan Singh is per incuriam.

The ‘chronology of cases’ mentioned in Rashmi

Rekha elucidates that there is only one judgment

anterior to Niranjan Singh, namely, Balchand Jain

vs State of M.P. (1976) 4 SCC 572, which along with

the Constitution Bench decision in Gurbaksh Singh

Sibbia, intrinsically concerned itself only with

anticipatory bail. It is necessary to give a salutary

clarion caution to all Courts, including High

Courts, to be extremely careful and circumspect in

concluding a judgment of the Supreme Court to be

per incuriam. In the present case, in the impugned

Order the learned Single Judge appears to have

blindly followed the incorrect and certainly

misleading editorial note in the Supreme Court

Reports without taking the trouble of conscientiously

apprising himself of the context in which Rashmi

Rekha appears to hold Niranjan Singh per incuriam,

and equally importantly, to which previous

judgment. An earlier judgment cannot possibly be

seen as per incuriam a later judgment as the latter if

numerically stronger only then it would overrule the

former. Rashmi Rekha dealt with anticipatory bail

under Section 438 and only tangentially with

Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC, and while

24

deliberations and observations found in this clutch

of cases may not be circumscribed by the term

obiter dicta, it must concede to any judgment

directly on point. In the factual matrix before us,

Niranjan Singh is the precedent of relevance and not

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia or any other decision where

the scope and sweep of anticipatory bail was at the

fulcrum of the conundrum.

21. Recently, in Dinesh Kumar, this conundrum

came to be considered again. This Court adhered to

the Niranjan Singh dicta (as it was bound to do), viz.

that a person can be stated to be in judicial custody

when he surrendered before the Court and submits

to its directions. We further regretfully observe that

the impugned Judgment is repugnant to the analysis

carried out by two coordinate Benches of the High

Court of Bombay itself, which were duly cited on

behalf of the Appellant. The first one is reported as

Balkrishna Dhondu Rani vs Manik Motiram Jagtap

2005 (Supp.) Bom C.R.(Cri) 270 which applied

Niranjan Singh; the second is by a different Single

Bench, which correctly applied the first. In the

common law system, the purpose of precedents is to

impart predictability to law, regrettably the judicial

indiscipline displayed in the impugned Judgment,

defeats it. If the learned Single Judge who had

authored the impugned Judgment irrepressibly held

divergent opinion and found it unpalatable, all that

he could have done was to draft a reference to the

Hon’ble Chief Justice for the purpose of constituting

a larger Bench; whether or not to accede to this

request remains within the discretion of the Chief

Justice. However, in the case in hand, this avenue

could also not have been traversed since Niranjan

Singh binds not only Co-equal Benches of the

Supreme Court but certainly every Bench of any

High Court of India. Far from being per incuriam,

Niranjan Singh has metamorphosed into the

structure of stare decisis, owing to it having endured

over two score years of consideration, leading to the

position that even Larger Benches of this Court

should hesitate to remodel its ratio.”

It is no doubt true that the Court is bound by the judgements of the

Coordinate Benches delivered prior in point of time, however, in the

present case, there is no such binding judgement of the Apex Court laying

down the law that Degree in Engineering is in the same line of

progression as Diploma in Engineering, the Apex Court while deciding

25

the case in Zahoor Ahmad (supra) referred to the earlier judgement in the

case of Jyoti K.K. (supra) and distinguished the same on the ground that

the analogy of the judgement in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra) hinged

around interpretation of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and

Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. Thus, we have no option but to repel

the argument as raised by Sri Khare to the effect that the judgement of the

Apex Court in case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra) should not be followed.

The next judgement relied upon by Sri Khare is the judgement in

the case of State of Punjab and others v. Anita and others, 2015 (2)

SCC 170 wherein the issue related to the appointment to the post of JBT

Teacher wherein the qualification prescribed under Rules was Matric with

two years' course in JBT Training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi

language of Matriculation standard or its equivalent. The Managing

Committee while advertising the said post prescribed a different

qualification from what was prescribed under Rules and the Apex Court

held that the persons appointed did not have the requisite qualification as

prescribed under Rules, the Supreme Court recorded as under:

“While examining the advertisement, which has

been extracted hereinabove, we are satisfied that

applications were not invited from candidates

possessing the qualification depicted in the appendix

to the 1981 Rules, pertaining to the posts of

JBT/ETT teachers. It is also apparent, that none of

the private respondents possess the qualification of

JBT/ETT, and as such, none of them can be stated to

be possessed of qualifications statutorily prescribed

and delineated in the appendix of the 1981 Rules.

None of the private respondents was therefore per se

eligible for appointment to the posts of JBT/ETT

teachers. This was one of the pointed reasons why

the State Government did not grant its approval to

the selection and appointment of the private

respondents. In our considered view, no infirmity

can be found in the aforesaid determination at the

hands of the State Government.”

Interestingly, in the said judgement also, the Supreme Court

clarified the basis of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of

26

Jyoti K.K. (supra) which was delivered in the context of Rule 10(a)(ii) of

the relevant Rules and was held not to be applicable in the case in

question i.e. State of Punjab and others v. Anita and others for the

simple reason that there was no similar statutory provision authorising the

person with higher qualification. The above referred judgement relied

upon by Sri Khare in fact lays down categorically that a higher

qualification cannot be basis for determining eligibility unless there is

enabling provision which is absent in the present case.

The next judgement relied upon was delivered in the case of

Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2012) 3 SCC

129 wherein the Supreme Court considered the word “equivalent”. The

said judgement has no applicability to the present case as Diploma in

Engineering and Bachelors of Technology can never be termed as

equivalent for the simple reason that they are in the different streams as

already held by us.

The next case relied upon by Sri Khare is the judgement in the case

of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District & Sessions Judge,

Nagpur & others, 2000 (2) SCC 606 which pertain to appointment to the

post of peons wherein the prescribed qualification was education upto

Standard VII and the persons possessing higher education, that is more

than Standard VII were non-suited, the said judgement held it to be

irrational. The above case will have no applicability to the facts of the

present case as it is clear that the candidate who has received education

over Class-VII by necessary implication must have completed the criteria

of Class-VII, in another words, the qualifications were directly

comparable, hence, it was possible to determine higher and lower

qualifications. However, in the present case, we have already held that a

Diploma in Engineering and a degree are not comparable and further we

are afraid that the said judgement has no applicability as the judgement

itself clarified that the findings were on the facts of the case in hand and

should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.

27

Para 20 & 21 of the judgement is being quoted hereinbelow:

“If an employee does not perform the duties

attached to the post disciplinary proceedings can

certainly be taken against him. An employer cannot

throw up his hands in despair and devise a method

denying appointments to a person who otherwise

needs the requisite qualifications on the ground that

if appointed, he would not perform his duties.

Qualification prescribed is minimum. Higher

qualification cannot become a disadvantage to the

candidate.

A criterion which has the effect of denying a

candidate his right to be considered for the post on

the principle that he is having higher qualification

than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not

been able to appreciate as to why those candidates

who possess qualifications equivalent to SCC

examination could also not be considered. We are

saying this on the facts of the case in hand and

should not be understood as laying down a rule of

universal application.”

The next judgement relied upon by Sri Khare in the case of PM.

Latha and another vs. State of Kerala and others, (2003) 3 SCC 541

wherein the question of recruitment to the lower post of Primary/Upper

Primary Teachers in the Government Schools was in consideration, the

qualification prescribed was “pass in TTC” whereas the holders of B.Ed.

degree were not-suited. The Supreme Court held as under:

“We find absolutely no force in the argument

advanced by the respondents that B.Ed.

qualification is a higher qualification than TTC

and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be

held to be eligible to compete for the post. On

behalf of appellants, it is pointed out before us

that Trained Teachers Certificate is given to

teachers specially trained to teach small

children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed.

degree, the training imparted is to teach

students of classes above primary. B.Ed. degree

holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to

be holding qualification suitable for

appointment as teachers in primary schools.

Whether for a particular post, the source of

recruitment should be from the candidates with

28

TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a

matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient

logic and justification in the State prescribing

qualification for post of primary teachers as

only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed.

qualification can also be prescribed for primary

teachers is a question to be considered by the

authorities concerned but we cannot consider

B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies

advertised, as eligible.

The division bench in the impugned order

upheld the decision of the single judge that in

terms of the advertisement, B.Ed. candidates

were not eligible to take up the selection and to

be included in the rank list. We fail to

understand that having thus upheld the decision

of the learned single judge what was the

justification for the division bench to refer to

statutory recruitment Rules applicable to

teachers in private primary schools, aided by

the Government and the judgments rendered by

the High Court in their cases, for reversing the

judgment of the Single Judge and maintaining

the Rank List including names of the B.Ed.

candidates and their appointments on the basis

of rules yet to be framed.”

In the said decision, the Supreme Court had clearly held that a

degree of B.Ed. does not necessarily implies pass in 'TTC' and thus the

holders of B.Ed. were denied the relief. The said case, in fact, re-enforces

our findings that the Graduates in Engineering are not entitled to be

considered as it cannot be implied that a Graduate in Engineering has the

qualifications of a Diploma in Engineering.

The last case relied upon by Sri Khare is Rajpal v. State of

Haryana, 2002 10 SCC 588 wherein the question before the Court was

whether the person who had passed Matriculation Examination conducted

by Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, however, the candidate had a

certificate of 10+2 of an examination held by Haryana Education Board,

which was the requisite prescribed qualification. In that context, the

Supreme Court held that the appellants possess the requisite qualification

29

as was prescribed. We are afraid that the facts and the judgement in the

case of Rajpal vs. State of Haryana has no applicability to the facts of the

present case as the qualification was held to be equivalent of what was

prescribed in the advertisement which is not the case in the present case.

Thus, our answer to the first two questions, is clear that a degree in

the field in question, cannot be viewed as a higher qualification compared

to Diploma in that field and that the judgement in the case of Alok Kumar

Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Kartikey vs. State of U.P. lay down the

correct position in law while holding that a degree holder is excluded

from the zone of consideration for appointment of a Junior Engineer.

The second aspect, as argued by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, that is to be

considered, is whether the State, as an employer, is free to prescribe

qualifications, as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration,

the nature of jobs, required, can be subjected to a judicial review.

In the case in hand, the only qualification prescribed was “Diploma

in Engineering” and it was not the minimum qualification, in fact, the

State, as an employer, specifically excluded “Graduate in Engineering”.

This aspect of the matter has been duly adverted to by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh

Imtiyaz Ahmad and others wherein the Apex Court held as under:

27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the

State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind

several features including the nature of the job, the

aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties,

the functionality of a qualification and the content of

the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition

of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the

authority to assess the needs of its public services.

Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within

the domain of administrative decision making. The

state as a public employer may well take into account

social perspectives that require the creation of job

opportunities across the societal structure. All these

are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must

tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K.

must be understood in the context of a specific

30

statutory rule under which the holding of a higher

qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a

lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for

the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the

decision in Jyoti K.K. turned.

28. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact

that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain

lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the

matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the

description of candidates who had secured an ITI

certification before seeking a lateral entry to a

diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with Matric is

required, a person who does not hold that qualification

is not eligible.

29. The submission based on Note 12, urged by Ms

Wadia, cannot be accepted. The stipulation that the

qualification prescribed is the bare minimum

requirement of the job emphasises that it is an

essential requirement, a threshold which cannot be

dispensed with. Under Note 12, the Board is entitled to

assign additional weightage for a higher qualification.

Whether such a weightage should be assigned is a

matter for the Board to determine. The SSSB did not

assign an additional weightage for a higher

qualification. In not exercising an enabling power, no

fault can be found with the SSSB. An enabling

provision postulates a discretion which may or may

not be exercised. A candidate has no vested right to

assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an

additional weightage to a higher qualification.

Whether to do so or not is a matter for the Board to

determine. All that Note 12 postulates is that the mere

possession of the prescribed qualification will not

entitle a candidate to be called for the written test or

interview. The Board may shortlist among eligible

candidates by granting a weightage to a higher

qualification in the relevant line or discipline. But the

words "as may be decided by the Board" in Note 12

indicate that the Board is vested with a discretion in

pursuance of an enabling power which it may or may

not exercise.”

In subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No. 4597 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos(s). 8494 of

2018) (The Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram

Warade and others) held as under:

“The essential qualifications for appointment to a

31

post are for the employer to decide. The employer

may prescribe additional or desirable

qualifications, including any grant of preference. It

is the employer who is best suited to decide the

requirements a candidate must possess according

to the needs of the employer and the nature of

work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of

eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with

regard to desirable qualifications being at par with

the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting

of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will

also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If

the language of the advertisement and the rules are

clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the

same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement

or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has

to go back to the appointing authority after

appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with

law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of

judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing

authority to decide what is best for the employer

and interpret the conditions of the advertisement

contrary to the plain language of the same.”

In view of the above referred judgements, we have no hesitation in

holding that the State, as an employer, is well equipped to decide the

desirable qualification or may prescribe additional qualification including

any grant of preference. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of

eligibility much less, it can go into the question of desirable qualification

being at par with the essential qualification.

Now, coming to the third question i.e. Question No. (C) that is

whether the degree holder can be held to be ineligible to participate in a

selection process for Junior Engineer in the light of the relevant statutory

Rules.

Sri Khare, in support of his submissions made earlier, has

contended that in some of the statutory Rules, Diploma in Engineering is

specified as the minimum qualification while with regard to some of the

Departments, Diploma in Engineering is specified as required

qualification. Be that as it may we have already held that Diploma in

32

Engineering being distinct from Graduate in Engineering, no benefit

flows from the advertisement whether the Diploma in Engineering is

prescribed as a 'minimum qualification' or 'required qualification'.

Testing the said arguments as raised by Sri Khare although on

record no Rules have been placed, however, in view of the finding

recorded by us that Diploma in Engineering is not the same as Bachelor

in Engineering and also the finding recorded by us that the State is well

equipped to prescribe the requisite required qualification keeping in view

the requirement of posts for which the advertisements are issued, we hold

that whether Diploma in Engineering is specified as a minimum

qualification or a required qualification, Graduates in Engineering would

not be entitled to be considered and will be out of zone of consideration

unless a candidate possess both the qualifications to explain it further

suppose a candidate after acquiring Diploma in Engineering also passes

Graduation in Engineering he would be eligible, in view of the fact that

he has Diploma in Engineering which is the required qualification for

applying to the post and cannot be denied to participate only because he

has any qualification additional to the prescribed qualification. However,

the State Government is free to provide for equivalence as was done by

the Kerala State while incorporating Rule 10(a)(ii). Since there is nothing

on record in the present case to show that there was any Rule or Directive

of the State Government to provide equivalence, it is only logical to

conclude that degree holders are ineligible to participate in the selection

process for Junior Engineer in the light of the specific provisions

incorporated under the advertisement in question.

Reverting the Question No. D whether the exclusion of degree

holders from the zone of consideration would meet the tests as

propounded by the Supreme Court in the State of Uttarakhand and

others vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another. It is essential that the

relevant observations in the case of Deep Chandra Tewari (supra) are

reproduced which are as under:

33

“We are conscious of the principle that when

particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the

candidature of a candidate possessing higher

qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. No

doubt, normal rule would be that candidate with

higher qualification is deemed to fulfil the lower

qualification prescribed for a post. But that higher

qualification has to be in the same channel. Further,

this rule will be subject to an exception. Where the

prescription of a particular qualification is found to

be relevant for discharging the functions of that post

and at the same time, the Government is able to

demonstrate that for want of the said qualification a

candidate may not be suitable for the post, even if he

possesses a “better” qualification but that “better”

qualification has not relevance with the function

attached with the post.”

Thus, the Supreme Court itself clarified that as a normal Rule, the

candidate with higher qualification is deemed to fulfill the lower

qualification prescribed for a post but the higher qualification has to be in

the same channel, we have already held that Diploma in Engineering and

Graduate in Engineering cannot be held to be in the same channel and

also that Graduate in Engineering cannot be deemed to fulfil the

qualification which are prescribed for grant of Diploma. Thus, we have

no hesitation in holding that the exclusion of degree holders from the

zone of consideration in respect of advertisement in question meets the

test as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of

Uttarakhand and others vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another.

Now we proceed to deal with the reference in the case of Himani

Singh vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, the advertisement in question

prescribed the qualification of Graduate in Commerce 'O' level Diploma

issued by any Government Recognised Institution. The petitioners were

non-suited as they hold a Post-Graduate Diploma in Computer

Application. Thus, the claim of the petitioners, before the learned Single

Judge, was that their qualifications are superior to the prescribed

qualification i.e. 'O' level Diploma in Computer Application. In the said

case, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission,

34

Lucknow had issued a Notification on 27.8.2018 notifying that the 'O'

level Diploma in Computer Application had been specified as essential

eligibility qualification and it further provided that there does not exist

any Government Order specifying the equivalent of qualification with 'O'

level Diploma in Computer Operation and that National Institute of

Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter referred to

'NIELIT'), earlier DOEAC Society had informed that apart from NIELIT

no other institution was authorized to grant 'O' level Certificate in

Computer Operation. The learned Single Judge, in his judgement dated

04.12.2018, rejected the contention of the petitioners therein relying upon

the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ

Petition No. 19687 of 2018 (Yogendra Singh Rana and 15 others vs. State

of U.P. and others). While dismissing the said writ petition, learned Single

Judge held that the assessment with regard to the suitability of the higher

qualification with a higher proficiency in the filed of Computer Operation

is in the field of policy and would not justify interference by the Writ

Court. Before the Special Appeal Court, the petitioners had argued that

the judgement of the Yogendra Rana (supra) is subject matter of pending

appeal in which interim order has also been passed. It was thus argued

before the Special Appeal Court that in view of decision in the case of

Jyoti K.K. (supra) and Parvez Ahmad Parry (supra), the matter requires to

be considered by the larger Bench that is how the matter was referred

vide order dated 15.2.2019.

In view of the facts in the case, it is clear that there was no

clarification/notification by the State Government providing for

equivalence of any other qualification as equal to 'O' level Diploma in

Computer Application. There being no material on record either before

the learned Single Judge or before us to show that qualification possessed

by the petitioners was in the same line of progression and also there being

no material on record to show that the entire syllabus as is prescribed for

grant of 'O' level Diploma in Computer Application was also the syllabus

35

studied by the students for grant of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer

Application (hereinafter referred to 'PGDCA'). In view of the said facts,

we record that the degree PGDCA does not pre-suppose the qualification

of 'O' level Computer Operation as is awarded by NIELIT.

Coupled with the said fact, we have already held that it is the State

Government which has the powers to prescribe the requisite qualification

required for the efficient discharge of duties for the post for which the

advertisement is issued and that being outside domain of judicial review

as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad

(supra) and Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram

Warade and others (supra). We hold that the persons having PGDCA

cannot be presumed to be having the qualification of 'O' level Diploma in

Computer Application.

Order :-

By the Court :- Thus, our answers to the questions posed before

the Full Bench are as under:

1) A Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering are two

distinct qualifications and a degree in the field in question cannot be

viewed as a higher qualification when compared to Diploma in that field.

2) The decision in the case of Alok Kumar Mishra (supra) and

Kartikey (supra) laid down the correct position in law holding that the

degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment

as a Junior Engineer with regard to the Diploma in question.

3) The degree holder is held to be ineligible to participate in the

selection process of Junior Engineer in the light of the Advertisement

issued.

4) The exclusion of the degree holders from the zone of

consideration is in consonance with the tests propounded by the Supreme

Court in case of State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Deep Chandra

36

Tewari and another.

5) The State Government, while prescribing the essential

qualifications or desirable qualifications are best suited to decide the

requirements for selecting a candidate for nature of work required by the

State Government and the courts are precluded from laying down the

conditions of eligibility. If the language in the Rules is clear judicial

review cannot be used to decide what is best suited for the employer.

6) The 'O' level Diploma granted by NIELIT is not equivalent to

Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application and there is no

presumption available to hold that the PGDCA possess the necessary

qualification as prescribed for 'O' level Diploma accorded by NIELIT.

The questions referred are answered as above, the files are

relegated to the court concerned for adjudication in terms of the questions

answered by us.

Order Date: 23.7.2019

Puspendra

(Bala Krishna Narayana,J.)

(Ramesh Sinha,J.)

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)