Gujarat High Court
Aditya Kumar Singh vs Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 27 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 112 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16062 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 112 of 2025
==========================================================
ADITYA KUMAR SINGH & ORS.
Versus
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
RONITH JOY(9560) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS NIRALI SARDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 27/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Admit. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned AGP waives service of
notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.6 and Mr.
Dipak R.Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of
admission on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. By consent, of
the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties,
the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent, 1865 emanates from the order dated
18.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the
captioned writ petition refusing the ad-interim relief. The
learned Single Judge has only issued notice and has held that
the petitioners may press interim relief if they make out a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
case. After issuance of notice, the captioned writ petition is
ordered to be listed on 29.01.2025.
3. Before passing the present order, we have clarified to
the learned advocate Mr. Ronith Joy appearing for the
appellants that if he so desire, he may pursue the writ
petition, as we are not inclined to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also brought to
the notice of the learned advocate for the appellants that any
observations made in the present appeal will have direct
impact in his pending writ petition. However, it is submitted
by him that he would like to invite a reasoned order dealing
with the merits of the matter. Thus, on the request of learned
advocate Mr. Ronith Joy, we have heard him on the merits and
also examined the case of the appellants, as to whether they
are entitled for interim relief of keeping 12 posts of Vidyut
Sahayak (Junior Engineer-Electrical) as vacant.
4. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Ronith Joy
appearing for the appellants that pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the respondent Company on
12.03.2024, they appeared in the recruitment process and
ultimately, they were placed in the select list. However, after
the stage of documents verification, they have been refused
the appointment orders. It is submitted that the respondents
have illegally rejected their candidatures for appointment on
the basis of their educational qualification.
5. While inviting our attention to the advertisement at
Annexure-A, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Ronith
Joy that the qualification prescribed therein is B.E.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
(Electrical) / B.Tech (Electrical) and the present appellants
possess the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Electrical
and Electronics Engineering, which is equivalent to the post
which has been advertised.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Ronith Joy has referred to the
judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 26.11.2012 passed in
W.P.(C) 6100/2012 & CM No.16465/2012 in case of Ms. Nisha
Vs. Union of India And Other, and has submitted that in
identical case the Delhi High Court has directed the
authorities to appoint those candidates, who possess the
degree of B.Tech. Electrical and Electronic on the very same
post by considering the degree equivalent to the degree of
B.Tech. (Electrical). Similarly, reliance is placed by him on the
judgment and order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Punjab
And Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP No.387 of
2014 (O&M) and allied matters, and has submitted that the
learned Single Judge ought to have passed the interim order
keeping 12 posts vacant.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Joy has further referred to various
advertisements issued by the different bodies in order to
substantiate his submissions that the appellants possess the
equivalent degree to that, which has been advertised by the
respondent Company. He has referred to the advertisement
issued by the Union Public Service Commission for filling up
the posts of engineers, and has referred to the subject of
Electrical Engineering of the said advertisement and
submitted that the degree possessed by the appellants is
equivalent to the degree, which has been advertised. Similar
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
reference has been made to the advertisement issued by Coal
India Ltd. dated 24.10.2024 and the advertisement issued by
Oil India dated 05.01.2024. He has submitted that in all
theses advertisements, the Bachelor Degree of Electrical
Engineering as well as Electrical & Electronic Engineering
are considered for filling up a common post of Senior Officers
either of Electrical or Electronic.
8. Finally, learned advocate Mr. Joy has referred to the
communication dated 23.10.2020 passed by the All India
Council For Technical Education by which the clarifications
have been issued with regard to equivalence or relevance of
the nomenclatures of degrees in Engineering and Technology.
Thus, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside and 12
posts may be ordered to remain vacant.
9. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dipak R.Dave
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 has submitted that in
the present case, the respondents have issued advertisement
for filling up the posts of Vidyut Sahayak (Junior Engineer -
Electrical) by inviting the candidates, who possess a
particular degree of B.E. (Electrical) as per their requirement.
It is submitted that the present case is not a case of
equivalence of degrees, but looking to their needs and the
work, the candidates possessing such degree are offered
appointments. It is submitted that upon verification of the
documentary evidence more particularly, the degrees and the
mark-sheets submitted by the appellants it was noticed that
they do not possess the degree as mentioned in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
advertisement and hence, their candidatures for the
appointment was cancelled. It is also submitted that the
matter is already listed for further hearing before the learned
Single Judge and the order of issuance of notice passed by the
learned Single Judge may not be interfered with.
10. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties at length. As mentioned hereinabove, we
have already put to the notice to the learned advocate
appearing for the appellants, as to whether he would be
inviting the reasoned order on merits or he would be pursuing
the writ petition however, he has chosen to invite the
reasoned order.
11. By the impugned order dated 18.12.2024, passed in the
captioned writ petition filed by the appellants, the learned
Single Judge has issued notice making it returnable on
29.01.2025. By recording the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate appearing for the respondents that the
appellants do not possess the exact educational criteria, the
grant of ad-interim relief is rejected. However, it is also
observed by the learned Single Judge that once the reply is
filed, it will be open for the present appellants-original
petitioners to press for the interim relief, if they make out a
case.
12. Today, learned advocate Mr. Ronith Joy appearing for
the appellants has tried to convince us by referring to the
aforesaid documents, which pertain to the advertisements
issued by various other bodies. It is not in dispute that in the
advertisement, the qualification mentioned for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
appointment of Vidyut Sahayak (Junior Engineer-Electrical) is
B.E. (Electrical) / B.Tech (Electrical) from any recognized
university. The present appellants possess the degree of
Bachelor of Technology in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering. Unquestionably, both the degrees are not
identical and they differ.
13. In the case of Ms. Nisha (Supra), the Delhi High Court
has considered the equivalence of degree of B.Tech.
(Electrical) and Electronic to that of B.Tech. (Electrical). The
Delhi High Court has ignored the opinion of the expert panel
and found the degree of (Electrical) and Electronic equivalent
to that of B.Tech. (Electrical).
14. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the latest
judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue with regard to
the equivalence of degree or the educational qualifications. In
the case of Unnikrishnan CV and Others Vs. Union of India
and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 343, while referring to the
judgment in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz
Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404, the Supreme Court has held as
under:
15. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad &
Ors., it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to
prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking
into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for
efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications,
course content leading up to the acquisition of various
qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of
the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the
prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification.
Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting
authority, to determine.
(emphasis supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/112/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
15. Thus, the law is well settled that the employer is entitled
to prescribe qualification as a condition of eligibility after
taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude
required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of
various qualifications, course content leading up to the
acquisition of various qualifications, etc. It is further
cautioned by the Supreme Court that judicial review can
neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor
decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with
any other given qualification and the equivalence of
qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority,
to determine.
16. Thus, the law enunciated by the Supreme Court would
prevail upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated
26.11.2012, on which the reliance is placed. Similarly, the
judgment dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Punjab And
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP No.387 of 2014
(O&M) and allied matters, would not apply to the facts of the
present case.
17. In view of the aforesaid position of law as well as the
facts, we find the appeal sans merits and the same is hereby
dismissed.
18. As a sequel, the connected Civil Application stands
disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj /24
