Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dilvaru Devi & Others vs State Of Hp & Others on 27 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
LPA No. 2 of 2022
Date of decision: 27th May, 2025
Dilvaru Devi & others ...Appellant
Versus
State of HP & others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Appellants: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr Nimish Gupta, Advocate for
respondents No.3 to 5.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
By way of present appeal, appellants/petitioners have
assailed judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed by learned Single Judge
in CWP No. 4529 of 2020, titled Dilvaru Devi & others vs. State of HP
and others, whereby petition preferred by appellants has been
dismissed.
2 CWP No. 4529 of 2020 was filed by the appellants-
petitioners for quashing impugned opinion of Law Department
circulated under signatures of DLR-cum-Deputy Secretary(Law) to the
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Note dated 19 th September,
2020 (Annexure P-10 to petition), on the basis of which private
respondents No.3 to 5 have been considered by respondents No.1
and 2 for promotion/placement to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) under Rules 11(ii) and 11(iii) notified vide Notification dated 6 th
December, 2019, (Annexure P-8 to the petition) prescribing 10% and
15% quota to Junior Engineers (Civil) having qualification of
B.E./B.Tech (Civil) or AMIE degree, with further prayer to restrain
respondents No. 1 and 2 from making promotions or placement of
private respondents No. 3 to 5 to the post of Assistant Engineer(Civil)
under these Rules.
3 For convenience, parties to lis are being referred as per
their status in Civil Writ Petition.
4 Petitioner No.1, after completing her B.Tech degree from
Himachal Pradesh University in the year 2012, was engaged on
contract basis on 5.10.2013 as Junior Engineer (Civil). Her services
were regularized vide order dated 6.5.2017 (Annexures P-1 and P-2).
5 Petitioner No.2 completed his B.Tech (Civil) from J.P.
University in the year 2014. He was engaged as Junior Engineer (Civil)
on contract basis on 1.11.2016 and his services were regularized vide
order dated 28.4.2020 (Annexures P-3 and P-4).
6 Both petitioners were having the degree of B.E./B.Tech at
the time of their appointment.
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
7 Respondent No.3 joined the services of Department as
Civil Engineer on 13.11.2009 on regular basis and passed AMICE(I) in
the year 2012 from the Institute of Civil Engineering (India) Ludhiana
(Pb.).
8 Respondent No.4 joined the duty as Junior Engineer (Civil)
on 29.5.2009 on contract basis. He completed his AMICE(I) in the year
November, 2012 and was regularized in March, 2015.
9 Respondent No.5 had taken admission in AMICE(I) Degree
after his appointment in the year 2012 and he completed his AMIEC(I)
in the year 2015 and his services were regularized in 2017.
10 Relevant provisions of Rules 11(ii) and 11(iii) notified vide
Notification dated 6.12.2019, read as under:-
"(ii) Junior Engineer (Civil) who acquire BE/B.Tech (Civil)
or AMIE degree during service as Junior Engineer (Civil)
with three years regular or regular combined with
continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade
after acquiring such qualification.........10%
(iii) Junior Engineer (Civil) who possess BE/B.Tech (Civil)
or AMIE degree at the time of appointment as Junior
Engineer (Civil) with three years regular or regular
combined with continuous adhoc service required, if any,
in the grade...........15%."
11 Prior to R&P Rules 2019 notified vide Notification dated 6th
December, 2019, the R&P Rules of 2010, notified vide Notification
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
dated 5th June, 2010, were in force, wherein provisions of Rules 11 (ii)
and 11(iii) were as under:-
(ii) Junior Engineers (Civil) who acquire BE (Civil) or its
equivalent degree during service as Junior Engineer (Civil)
with three years regular or regular combined with
continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in he grade
after acquiriing such qualification.......10%
(iii) Junior Engineer(Civil) who possess Degree in Civil
Engineering or its equivalent at the time of appointment
as Junior Engineer(Civil) with three years' regular or
regular combined with continuous adhoc service
rendered, if any, in the grade......15%"
12 It has been canvassed on behalf of appellants that in
unamended Rules, there was scope of equivalence of any degree
equivalent to B.E./B.Tech or AMIE, but after framing the R&P Rules
2019, R&P Rules 2010 have been repealed. There is no scope for
equivalency of any degree with B.E./B.Tech or AMIE degree for
consideration of candidature of a person under existing Rules 11(ii)
and 11(iii) for promotion.
13 It has been further submitted that in R&P Rules, 2010
there was provision for considering equivalence of qualification,
however, it stands repealed vide amendment carried out in the R&P
Rules and therefore, it is explicit intention of the employer that no
equivalency with B.E./B.Tech or AMIE is permissible.
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
14 It has been submitted that Rules existing on the day are
to be made applicable and, therefore, for not having degree of
B.E./B.Tech or AMIE as provided in the prevailing R&P Rules, private
respondents are not entitled for consideration under Rules 11(ii) and
11(iii) of relevant R&P Rules.
15 It has been contended that AMICE degree obtained by
private respondents is not a AMIE degree as provided under R&P
Rules, 2019, and therefore, for absence of mention of degree of
AMICE in the Rules, the learned Single Judge has committed an error
by equating AMICE with AMIE particularly when Rules do not provide
consideration of equivalent degree or equivalence of a degree with a
degree prescribed under the Rules.
16 To substantiate the plea, learned counsel for appellants
has placed reliance upon Unnikrishnan CV and others vs. Union
of India and others reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 256 (para 5
onwards); Prakash Chand Meena and others vs. State of
Rajasthan and others reported in (2015)8 SCC 484 (Paras 8 and
9); State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raj Kumar and
others reported in (2023)3 SCC 773 (Paras 27 and 28).
17 Learned counsel for private respondents has contended
that petitioners, who had joined the services in the Department after
respondents, have no locus standi to file the petition at this stage
against the private respondents. Further that amendment in the Rules
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
has been carried out for removing the doubts because provisions for
equivalency was creating difficulty, as some of the employees were
claiming equivalency of their degree to the AMIE despite the fact that
they had not obtained the degree of AMIE or equivalent thereof.
18 It has been submitted that amendment has not been
carried out to debar the persons like private respondents, but has
been made for curative purpose so as to avoid any confusion.
19 It has been further submitted on behalf of private
respondents that AMICE or AMIE are one and same degrees
recognized by the Government of India as evident from the record as
well as the opinion of Law Department and therefore, it would be
incorrect to say that degree of AMICE obtained by private
respondents is a degree different to AMIE prescribed under the Rules.
20 Learned counsel for private respondents has placed
reliance upon judgments Puneet Sharma and others vs.
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another
reported in AIR 2021 SC 2221 (para 22):(2021)16 SCC 340; Zile
Singh vs. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 2004 SC
5100/(2004)8 SCC 1 (paras 22 to 26).
21 In Unnikrishnan CV's case, the issue involved was with
respect to comparison of Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and
Design (DED) with Diploma in Civil Engineering. These two Diplomas
were altogether different and prayer was being made to the Court to
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
declare that Diploma in DED and Diploma in Civil Engineering were
equivalent. The Court had reiterated that Courts would not venture to
prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of the
Course. Until and unless the Rule itself prescribes the equivalency of
courses named differently to be treated alike, the Court would not
supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies.
22 Similarly in judgment Guru Nanak Dev University vs.
Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another reported in (2009)1 SCC 610,
considered in Unnnikrishnan CV's case, it was held by the Court
that there was no material on record to show that the distant
education course was also recognized as equivalent to the degree of
MA (English) and it was reiterated that equivalence was a technical
academic matter.
23 In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & others vs. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was
observed 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. Equivalence of
qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to be
determined.
24 In Prakash Chand Meena's case also it was observed
that in the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent
qualification must be recognized as such, in the recruitment rules or
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
Government orders, existing on or before the initiation of recruitment
process.
25 In Raj Kumar's case, it was observed that with the
enactment of laws and issuance of rules governing the services,
Governments are equally bound by the mandate of the rule. There is
no power or discretion outside the provision of the rules governing
the services and the actions of the State are subject to judicial review.
26 In Puneet Sharma's case, it was reiterated that the
State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualification as a
condition of eligibility and it is not a part, Role or intention of the
judicial review to expand upon the ambit of prescribed qualification,
and similarly equivalence of qualification is not a matter which can be
determined in exercise of power of judicial review. Whether a
particular qualification should or should not be regarded as
equivalent, is a matter of State as recruiting authority to determine.
27 In Puneet Sharma' case, it was further opined that
though the amending Rules were brought into force prospectively, but
being clarificatory they applied to the recruitment, in the given facts
and circumstances, retrospectively despite their enforcement
prospectively.
28 In present matter, learned Single Judge has not
undertaken the exercise of equivalence of two degrees of different
nature. Rather, the State/Department had considered the degree
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
obtained by the incumbents, who had applied for and acquired their
degrees prior to 31.05.2013 from the Institute of Civil Engineering
India, Ludhiana (Pb), for the purpose of recruitment and promotion in
the Department with clarification that incumbents, who had already
acquired the degree from the said Institute before 31.5.2013 as well
as the incumbents who had enrolled before 31.5.2013, but acquired
their degree(s) even thereafter, were also to be considered for the
purpose of recruitment and promotion. It is also undisputed fact that
Institute of Civil Engineering India Ludhiana (Pb) awards degree of
AMICE i.e. Associate Member of Institution of Civil Engineers, which is
duly recognized by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) in
its 52nd emergent meeting held on 3.8.2017 as recorded by learned
Single Judge referring the letter dated 14.1.2019.
29 It is no one's case that Institute of Civil Engineering India
Ludhiana (Pb) grants two different degrees i.e. AMIE and AMICE. The
only degree, which is recognized by the Government and AICTE,
awarded by Institute of Civil Engineering India Ludhiana (Pb.) is
AMICE.
30 Learned Single Judge has not made equivalence of two
degrees, but has only clarified that degree of AMIE awarded by the
Institution of Engineers (India) at Kolkata as AMIE i.e. Associate
Member of Institution of Engineers India is equivalent to B.E./B.Tech
and as per Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD),
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
Government of India, the AMIE is considered equivalent to the degree
in Engineering and further that degree of AMICE has been considered
equivalent to AMIE by the recruiting employer/State in consonance
with the opinion of Law Department.
31 It has been further clarified by learned Single Judge that
insertion of word 'Civil' in the degree of AMIE does not change the
nature of qualification prescribed under R&P Rules as both i.e. AMIE
and AMICE have been recognized by the Government of India as well
as recruiting Department and Law Department of the State as one
and the same qualification.
32 It has been observed by learned Single Judge that it was
not the stand of recruiting Department/State or the Law Department
that private respondents were not eligible for promotion rather,
degree of AMICE-I has been considered as degree of AMIE for all
intents and purposes.
33 Learned Single Judge has not entered into the exercise of
equivalence. "Equivalency" is an exercise to be undertaken for
comparing the subject as well as duration of the course with each
other. This exercise has already been done by the Department and
Law Department. Therefore, it is wrong to say that learned Single
Judge has transgressed the jurisdiction by entering into exercise of
equivalency. Learned Single Judge has only clarified that degree of
AMIE and degree of AMICE have been considered similar by the
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
Department and Law Department correctly as addition of word "civil"
does not make any difference, particularly when both degrees are in
Civil Engineering.
34 Learned Single Judge has not substituted any
independent view in place of view of recruiting
Agency/State/Department, but has only undertaken judicial review of
decision of recruiting Department/State and after taking into
consideration material before him has not found any fault in decision
of recruiting Department/State in considering the degree holders of
AMICE at par with degree holders of AMIE with clarification that
insertion of word 'Civil' does not change the nature of degree
awarded to the private respondents. It is also apt to record that
degree of AMIE prescribed under R&P Rules is also a degree
equivalent to the degree of B.E./B.Tech in Civil Engineering. Therefore,
addition of word 'Civil' in degree of AMIE does not make any
difference and does not disqualify the private respondents from
considering them eligible from recruitment/promotion.
35 Therefore, the act of recruiting Department/State and
findings returned by learned Single Judge are not contrary to
pronouncements of the Supreme Court, but are in consonance with
settled law of land with clarification of peculiar facts of present case
with respect to addition of word 'Civil' in the degree of AMIE awarded
by the Institute of Civil Engineering India Ludhiana (Pb.)
( 2025:HHC:16346 )
36 In view of above discussion, we do not find any illegality,
irregularity or perversity in impugned judgment passed by learned
Single Judge warranting interference of this Court especially
exercising peculiar jurisdiction of Letters Patent Appeal.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
27th May, 2025(ms) (Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
