Jharkhand High Court
Richa Raj vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4886 of 2023
Richa Raj, aged about 22 years, D/o Subhash Kumar, resident of New Colony,
beside Kodarma, P.O. & P.S. - Koderma, District Koderma (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur,
District- Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi.
3. Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. -
Jagarnathpur District - Ranchi
4. Secretary, Energy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, District -
Ranchi
5. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having its
office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District -
Ranchi.
6. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having
its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District -
Ranchi. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
: Mr. A. Choubey, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Advocate
: Mr. J. Suren, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
: Mr. Raunak Sahay, AC to G.P.-V
For the Resp.-JPSC : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
: Ms. Riya Narain, Advocate
---
th
10/06 May 2024
Lastly heard on 14th of March 2024
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-
"(a). For a writ of declaration, declaring that as far as the words
"उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे" used in Rule 2 of the
notification contained in memo no. 8614 dated 25.10.2019
(Annexure-5) is concerned, only the candidates who possesses
higher qualification viz. B. Tech, M. Tech or Ph.D. in the same
channel in which they have pursued their Diploma are eligible to
participate in the Advertisement No. 04/2023 for the post of Junior
Engineer and not through any other channel by which a candidate
may possess a higher technical degree without diploma
particularly when the post in question is a diploma level post and
the requirement of minimum educational qualification for the said
post is of diploma level itself as well as the words "उच्च तकनिकी
योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे" are vague & ambiguous and the
same shall be interpreted by the rule of construction/legal maxim
"Noscitur a Sociis" which propounds that the meaning of the
doubtful words may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of
the words associated with it;"
(b). For such declaration, a writ of mandamus commanding upon
the respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to consider
the candidature of only those candidates who either possesses the
diploma in the required discipline or possess higher technical
qualification in the same channel in which they have pursued their
Diploma;
(c ). For quashing of the Column 4 under Clause 6 of the vacancies
published in Advertisement No. 04/2023 (Annexure -2) floated by
the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for recruitment on the
post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under different departments of
the Government of Jharkhand in so far as it allows candidates with
higher technical qualification without diploma in the same channel
to be eligible to participate in the appointment process of the
diploma level posts as the same is vague, arbitrary, irrational and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(d). For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in
the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent-JSSC
not to call upon any candidate for counselling/ document
verification who have filled up the application forms having
requisite qualification of B.Tech degree and further be directed not
to publish the final result/ merit list of candidates having requisite
qualification of direct B.Tech degree holders;
(e). During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent-JSSC be
directed to keep the results in abeyance of all the candidates who
have filled-up the application form upon the basis of having
requisite qualification of direct B.Tech degree;"
2. The sole petitioner having qualification of Diploma in Electrical
Engineering from State Board of Technical Education, Jharkhand is an
applicant in recruitment process of Jharkhand Diploma Level Combined
Competitive Examination, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "JDLCCE-
2023") through advertisement no. 4 of 2023. The petitioner is a candidate in
the appointment process of the junior engineers in the Urban Development and
Housing Department of the State of Jharkhand.
3. Through this writ petition the petitioner is seeking interpretation of the
words "उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे" as used in the notification
contained in memo. no. 8614 dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-5) prescribing the
required qualification for applying in recruitment process of "JDLCCE-2023"
through Advertisement no. 4 of 2023. The interpretation as proposed by the
petitioner to the term "उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे" should mean
only those persons having degree in technical education but have obtained the
'high technical education' after having diploma in engineering and would not
include those persons who hold degree in Technical Education from
Engineering Colleges after class XII (herein after referred to as direct B.
Tech. degree holders) without going through the channel of education through
diploma. Consequently, the petitioner is aggrieved by the selection process
through advertisement no.4 of 2023 whereby the "direct B. Tech. degree
holders" have been permitted to participate through Column 4 under Clause 6
of the advertisement.
4. In order to explain the dispute, the learned counsel has given the
following comparative table to draw a distinction between those having
diploma in engineering with higher qualification having degree in bachelor
of engineering on the one hand and those having degree in Technical
Education from Engineering Colleges after class XII i.e direct B. Tech.
degree. The chart is as under: -
Channel- 1 Channel - 2
Diploma Holder Channel Direct B. Tech Degree Holder Channel
10th/Matric 10th/Matric
Diploma/Polytechnic 12th /Intermediate
B.E./B. Tech B.E./B. Tech
(3 year Course) (4 year Course)
M.E/M. Tech M.E/M. Tech
Ph.D. Ph.D.
5. According to the petitioner the candidates through channel- 1 only
should be eligible to participate and the candidates through channel- 2 are not
eligible. The required basic qualification is diploma and the term "उच्च तकनिकी
योग्यताधारी" is the subject matter of interpretation as to whether it is to be read
as 'high technical qualification' (i.e B. Tech. degree) with respect to only those
who have B. Tech. degree over and above diploma or the candidature is open
to even those who have B. Tech. degree without having diploma.
6. The petitioner is seeking a declaration that the words " उच्च तकनिकी
योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे " used in Rule 2 of the notification contained in
Memo dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure- 5) is to be read in a manner that only
those candidates who possessed higher qualification i.e. B. Tech., M. Tech.
and Ph.D. in the same channel in which they have pursued diploma should be
eligible to participate in the selection process and those who have obtained the
aforesaid degree of B. Tech., M. Tech. or Ph.D. without having qualification
of diploma or without having acquired 'high technical qualification' through
diploma should not be permitted to participate. In order to give such an
interpretation, the petitioner is relying upon the maxim "Noscitur a Sociis"
which propounds that the meaning of the doubtful words may be ascertained
by reference to the meaning of the words associated with it. It has been argued
that the aforesaid term namely "उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे " is
required to be read in conjunction with the words "diploma holder" which is
the basic required qualification.
7. In the aforesaid background, the clause regarding qualification as
mentioned in the advertisement is quoted as under: -
"मान्यता प्राप्त नवश्वनवद्यालय / सोंस्थाि से नवद् यु त में निप्लोमा।
सोंबोंनधत शाखा में उच्च तकिीकी योग्यता धाररत करिे वाले अभ्यथी भी आवेदि दे िे के
पात्र होोंगे।"
8. Column 4 under Clause 6 of the advertisement no.4 of 2023 is quoted as
under -
क्रम पदनाम वेतनमान न्यूनतम शैक्षणिक योग्यता
सं. (सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त
संस्थान से)
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. कनीय अभियंता (ववद्युत) पे मैट्रिक्स लेवल-6, मान्यता प्राप्त ववश्वववद्यालय /
(समह
ू -'ख' अराजपत्रित) संस्थान से ववद्यत
ु में डिप्लोमा।
35,400 -
संबंधित शाखा में उच्च तकनीकी
112400/- योग्यता िाररत करने वाले
अभ्यथी िी आवेदन दे ने के पाि
होंगे।
9. It is to be noted that the terminology used in the advertisement is
"संबंधित शाखा में उच्च तकनीकी योग्यता िाररत करने वाले अभ्यथी िी आवेदन दे ने के पाि
होंगे।". Meaning thereby, the candidates having 'high technical qualification' in
the concerned branch would also be eligible for submitting their application.
10. Consequently, the petitioner is also seeking a mandamus that only those
candidates who either possess diploma in the required discipline or possess
'high technical qualification' through the channel of diploma should be
permitted to participate in the selection process and others having 'high
technical qualification' in the same branch but without having diploma should
be excluded.
11. Arguments of the petitioner.
A. The minimum education qualification as mentioned in Clause - 6 of
the advertisement is that candidate must be having a diploma from the
recognized university and in the same stream, candidate having the
'high technical qualification' with also be eligible.
B. That the present recruitment process has been floated in terms of the
Rules namely Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Examination
(Diploma Level) Conduct Rules, 2015 notified on 28.09.2015. Rule
No. 5 (ii) specifically provides that desirable education qualification is
diploma in the relevant subject. The Rule was amended vide
notification dated 25.10.2019 whereby a candidate must possess
diploma in Engineering from the recognized institution of AICTE in
civil/electrical/mechanical/agricultural and the candidate having the
high technical degree will also be eligible. Thereafter, vide notification
dated 17.11.2021 additional clause has been inserted that minimum
education qualification and other technical eligibility is mandatory in
nature.
C. A candidate, who possess 'high technical qualification' has to have the
said qualification in the same channel of diploma meaning thereby a
candidate must possess the higher qualification along with diploma
certificate in the same discipline. Allowing the candidates of direct B.
Tech degree holder, who completely belong from different channel of
education, would be unwarranted qualification and would ultimately
diminish the chances of recruitment of those candidates, who only
possess diploma certificate.
D. That allowing the candidates with 'high technical qualification', but
without the diploma certificate in the same discipline, is in teeth of
intent and object of the parent rule, which clearly describes that the
rules are framed for conducting the examination of diploma level post.
E. That the respondents by formulating vague and ambitious rule, by
diminishing the parent rule, which was enacted for appointment of
diploma level post, is highly arbitrary, irrational and violative of
Article 14 of Constitution of India.
F. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner has
submitted the following arguments which is stated herein below: -
i. The amendment of 2021 itself shows that the diploma level
examinations conducted by the JSSC is only for the students who
pursued diploma after Matric/Class 10th and the said amended rule
does not prescribe the condition of passing from the recognized
institution for Intermediate/Class 12th which itself means that the
rules was framed to allow the candidates of a higher qualification
in the same channel through which they obtained a diploma
certificate and not any other channel.
ii. Upon construction of the Amendments carried out in the year
2019 and in the year 2021, it can be safely inferred that the Rule
was very much intended to allow only the candidates who have
pursued diploma after his/her Matric/Class 10th and no other.
However, stipulation of an additional clause in the amendment of
2019 which is "उच्च तकिीकी योग्यता धाररत करिे वाले अभ्यथी भी आवेदि दे िे के
पात्र होोंगे।" can by no stretch of imagination be said to have included
the candidates having 'high technical qualification' without
diploma.
iii. That the words "उच्च तकिीकी योग्यता धाररत करिे वाले अभ्यथी भी आवेदि दे िे के
पात्र होोंगे।" has led to vagueness and ambiguity and the words so
framed has to be constructed in the light of the legal maxim
"Noscitur a Sociis" meaning thereby that the doubtful words
maybe ascertained by reference to the meaning of the words
associated with it.
iv. That while allowing the other candidates who do not possess the
diploma degree but possess a qualification higher than diploma
would ultimately hit the fabric of the societal structure wherein
the competition is put amongst the disproportionate variables of
the society.
v. That the entire contentions in a nutshell is that the said
Amendment rules re-prescribing the eligibility conditions for the
diploma level examination to an extent of allowing the candidate
to participate in the selection process without holding a diploma
degree with a presupposition that any candidate holding the high
technical qualification shall be considered to have acquired the
minimum eligibility qualification is arbitrary, whimsical and non-
est in the eyes of law.
vi. That the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical), Junior Engineer
(Civil), Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and Junior Engineer
(Agricultural) are the diploma level posts and the educational
qualification for the said post shall be of the diploma level itself.
vii. That a candidate who possesses 'high technical qualification' has
to have the said 'high technical qualification' in the same channel
of Diploma meaning thereby a candidate must possess the 'high
technical qualification' along with the diploma certificate in the
same discipline.
viii. That the purpose of amendment brought through memo no. 8614
dated 25.10.2019 is to induct candidates with 'high technical
qualification' but only if the said candidate is a diploma holder.
ix. That allowing the candidates with 'high technical qualification'
without there being a diploma certificate would mean allowing
entry of candidates possessing unwarranted qualifications.
x. That the action of the respondents in allowing the candidates who
have acquired 'high technical qualification' without a diploma
certificate in the same channel vis-à-vis the candidates who
possess diploma certificate for appointment on the posts of
diploma level would result in un-equal level playing field and
would ultimately restrict/diminish the chances of recruitment of
those candidates who only possess diploma certificate.
xi. That the action of the respondents in allowing the candidates who
have acquired their 'high technical qualification' viz. B. Tech, M.
Tech and Ph.D. degree without pursuing diploma in the same
discipline for the diploma level post is arbitrary, discriminatory
and irrational.
xii. That the action of the respondents in allowing the candidates with
'high technical qualification' but without the diploma certificate
in the same discipline is in teeth of the intent and object of the
parent Rule which clearly describes that the rules are framed for
conduction of the examination of diploma level posts.
xiii. If both are permitted to attend the same examination without any
discrimination then in all probabilities, the degree holders will
always take lead as against the diploma holders. So, the
opportunity to get a government job will almost be closed to the
diploma holders and in other words the persons who are not
capable enough to take the qualification of a degree and cannot
afford the monetary expenses to get their degree course, will
always be deprived from the government job where the diploma is
the minimum qualification to make the candidate eligible for the
post.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following
judgments:
i. "State of Uttarakhand Vs. Deep Chandra Tewari"
reported in (2013) 15 SCC 557 (paragraph - 11)
ii. "Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad"
reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 (paragraph - 20, 26 and 27)
iii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in
L.P.A. No. 1416 of 2018 in the case of "The Bihar State
Power (Holding) Company Ltd. vs. Md. Asif Hussain".
Said judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 1187 of 2019 vide order dated 22nd
January 2019.
iv. Full bench Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court in Writ A No. 24273 of 2018 in the case of
"Deepak Singh Vs. State of U.P." Said judgment was
upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No.
27250 of 2019 vide order dated 29th November 2019.
v. Judgment dated 02nd May 2016 passed by Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in Service Single No. 6655 of 2016
in the case of "Alok Kumar Misra Vs. State of U.P." This
judgement has been upheld in full bench decision of
"Deepak Singh Vs. State of U.P."(supra).
vi. Judgment passed by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court on
13th July 2015 in the case of "Vikas Kumar Vs. State of
Uttarakhand" passed in Writ Petition No. 643 of 2015.
vii. Judgment passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 30th
January 2023 in the case of "Milind Shantilal Rathod Vs.
State of Maharashtra" passed in Writ Petition No. 8568 of
2022.
viii. Judgment passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court on 22nd
February, 2023 in the case of "Manish Kumar Aloria Vs.
State of Rajasthan" passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
382 of 2022 and other analogous cases.
Argument of the respondents
13. The minimum educational qualification for posts in the said
Examination Rules, and also in the Advertisement have been fixed in
accordance with the provisions laid down by the Jharkhand Junior Engineering
Cadre (Junior Engineer, Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) Service Rules, 2013 as
framed by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand vide
its Notification No: 377 (S) dated 16.01.2014 as amended by the Notification
No. 172 (S) dated 21.01.2022 and Notification No. 1770 (S) dated 20.04.2023.
The Rule 9 of the Jharkhand Junior Engineering Cadre (Junior Engineer, Civil/
Electrical/Mechanical) Service Rules, 2013 fixes the Minimum Technical
Qualification for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer. Rule 9 has the
following provision with respect to the Minimum Technical Qualification: -
"Diploma or equivalent in Civil/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering
from institutes established under law and recognized by the
Central/State Government or from institutes recognized by the All
India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) on the last date of
application advertised by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.
High technical qualification holding candidates will also be eligible
for application."
So far as the interpretation of 'High technical qualification' is concerned, the
same can be clarified by the Road Construction Department, Government of
Jharkhand, as the Service Rule for the advertised posts have been framed by
the said Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent state that the
writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Road
Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand and therefore no relief
can be granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has
relied upon the judgment passed in the case of "Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue" reported in AIR
1963 SC 786 to submit that the necessary records with regards to the framing
of the Rules of 2013 is available with the Road Construction Department and
therefore they are necessary party.
14. The learned counsels for the respondent JSSC has opposed the prayer of
the petitioner by submitting that there is no ambiguity in the rules and all
candidates having high technical qualifications irrespective of the channel of
obtaining high technical education i.e through diploma or direct B-tech Degree
are eligible to participate in the selection process and the applications of direct
B-tech Degree holders have been rightly accepted. The JSSC who is the
examination conducting body has interpreted the said rule in their Counter
Affidavit filed on 14.12.2023 that nowhere has it been mentioned in the
recruitment rule that only candidates with high technical qualification in same
channel/ stream will be allowed.
Rejoinder arguments of the petitioner
15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the
Counter Affidavit filed on 02.02.2024 by the respondent no. 4 a stand has been
taken that the required qualification will be clarified by Road Construction
Department. Similarly, in the other Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No
3 on 13.10.2023, no specific stand has been taken with respect to the issue
involve in this present writ petition. Further, in the Counter Affidavit filed on
26.02.2024 by the Respondent No. 2 a stand has been taken that the
interpretation of said rule will be clarified by Road Construction Department.
It is submitted by the petitioner that Rule is not framed by the Road
Construction Department and the case of the petitioner has nothing to do with
the Road Construction Department so Road Construction Department is
neither a party nor has any concern with present issue. Rules are framed and
amended by Department of Personnel, Govt of Jharkhand.
Findings of this Court.
16. The core relief sought for by the petitioner is that the selection process
pursuant to advertisement no. 4 of 2023 should be confined to the diploma
holders and also to such diploma holders who have acquired 'high technical
qualification' in the same stream. The petitioner is seeking a declaration that
the eligibility should not be extended to those who have 'high technical
qualification' in the same stream but through different channel, other than the
channel of obtaining a diploma. It would be useful to refer to the rules
governing the selection process involved in this case.
17. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Examination (diploma level)
Conduct Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules of
2015) framed by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
department of the state government provides that the Recruitment Rules of
2015 have been framed for selection of employees at diploma level posts. This
is apparent from the introductory portion, which reads as follows: -
>kj[k.M deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx vf/kfu;e] 2008 ¼>kj[k.M vf/kfu;e 16- 2008½ dh
/kkjk&12 dh mi & /kkjk ¼i) esa iznr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;kx djrs gq, mDr vf/kfu;e ds
izko/kkuksa dks dk;kZfUor djus ds fy, >kj[k.M jkT;iky >kj[k.M deZpkjh p;u
vk;ksx ds }kjk fMIyksek Lrjh; inksa ij fu;qfDr ds fy, p;u gsrq yh tkus okyh
ijh{kkvksa ds lapkyu ds fy, fuEufyf[kr fu;ekoyh cukrs gSa%&
¼i½ ;g fu;ekoyh **>kj[k.M deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx ijh{kk ¼fMIyksek Lrj½
lapkyu fu;ekoyh] 2015** dgh tk,xhA
The eligibility criteria has been provided in clause 5 and the portion
relevant for the purposes of this case is quoted as under:-
5.
¼i½ ....................
¼ii½ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vk;ksx esa vkosnu i= tek gksus dh vafre frfFk rd
okafNr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vFkkZr lEcfU/kr fo"k; esa fMIyksek izkIr djuk
vko';d gksxkA
18. The selection process consists of preliminary exam and mains exam.
The preliminary exam consists of two parts, 1st part is regarding Hindi and
English Language and 2nd part is regarding general knowledge, general
science, general maths, reasoning and basic computer knowledge. So far as the
mains examination is concerned, the posts under schedule -1 have two papers,
1st is of general engineering and 2nd is of specialized subject such as civil
engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, agricultural
engineering, automobile engineering and mining engineering. The prescribed
standard of questions was of Diploma level.
19. The details of the posts have been mentioned in schedule-1. So far as the
posts to be filled up under schedule-2 is concerned there is only one paper in
mains as per the subject. The aforesaid two schedules under 2015 rules are as
follows: -
"डिप्लोमा योग्यता वाले पदों की अनुसूची-1
(ननयम - 7)
क्र०सं० वविाग का नाम पद/सेवा का नाम
1 लोक ननमााि वविाग (i) कनीय अभियंता (भसववल)
[ झारखण्ि अवर अभियंिि (ii) कनीय अभियंता (यांत्रिकी)
संवगा (कनीय अभियंता, भसववल (iii) कनीय अभियंता (ववद्यत
ु )
/ ववद्युत / यांत्रिक) सेवा
ननयमावली 2013 के पद ]
2 कृवि एवं गन्ना ववकास वविाग कनीय अभियंता (कृवि अभियंिि)
3 पररवहन वविाग मोटरयान ननरीक्षक
4 खान एवं िूतत्व वविाग खान ननरीक्षक
"डिप्लोमा योग्यता वाले पदों की अनुसूची-2
(ननयम - 7)
क्र०सं० वविाग का नाम पद/सेवा का नाम
1 स्वास््य, धचककत्सा भशक्षा एवं (i) लेबोरे िी अभसस्टे न्ट
पररवार कल्याि वविाग (ii) लेबोरे िी अटै न्िेंट
(iii) फामााभसस्ट
(iv) एक्स-रे तकनीभशयन
(v) आप्थेल्ल्मक सहायक
(vi) प्रयोगशाला तकनीभशयन
20. The aforesaid Recruitment Rules of 2015 were amended vide
notification issued on 25th October, 2019 by Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha department of the state government. The name of the
rules was changed from-
to
21. Thus, the selection under diploma level was changed to selection under
diploma/technical/other special qualification level.
22. The prescribed mandatory qualification of having a diploma under the
rule 5(ii) of Recruitment Rules of 2015 was substituted by required minimum
qualification as per substituted rule 5(ii) and Rule 5(iii) was added. The
minimum qualification for employment in schedule 1 category was prescribed
under rule 5(ii) and the minimum qualification prescribed under schedule-2
category was prescribed under rule 5(iii) in the following manner: -
1- >kj[k.M deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx ijh{kk ¼fMIyksek Lrj½ lapkyu fu;ekoyh] 2015 ds
fu;e 5 ¼ii½ dks fuEuor~ izfrLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gS%&
2- >kj[k.M deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx ijh{kk ¼fMIyksek Lrj½ lapkyu fu;ekoyh] 2015 ds
fu;e 5 ¼ii½ ds mijkar fu;e 5 ¼iii½ dks fuEuor~ var%LFkkfir fd;k tkrk gS%&
iii
The schedules are as follows: -
"डिप्लोमा योग्यता वाले पदों की अनुसूची -1
(ननयम - 7)
क्र०सं० वविाग का नाम पद/सेवा का नाम
1 लोक ननमााि वविाग i) कनीय अभियंता (भसववल)
[ झारखण्ि अवर अभियंिि (ii) कनीय अभियंता (यांत्रिकी)
संवगा (कनीय अभियंता, भसववल (iii) कनीय अभियंता (ववद्युत)
/ ववद्यत
ु / यांत्रिक) सेवा
ननयमावली 2013 के पद ]
2 कृवि, पशुपालन एवं सहकाररता कनीय अभियंता (कृवि अभियंिि)
वविाग।
3 पररवहन वविाग। मोटरयान ननरीक्षक
4 खान एवं िूतत्व वविाग। खान ननरीक्षक
5 उच्च, तकनीकी भशक्षा एवं प्रयोगशाला सहायक
कौशल ववकास वविाग।
6 नगर ववकास एवं आवास कनीय अभियंता (ववद्युत)
वविाग। कनीय अभियंता (भसववल)
कनीय अभियंता (यांत्रिकी)
"तकनीकी एवं अन्य ववभशष्ट योग्यता वाले पदों की अनुसूची-2
(ननयम - 7)
क्र०सं० वविाग का नाम पद/सेवा का नाम
1 स्वास््य, धचककत्सा भशक्षा एवं (i) लेबोरे िी अभसस्टे न्ट
पररवार कल्याि वविाग (ii) लेबोरे िी अटै न्िेंट
(iii) फामााभसस्ट
(iv) एक्स-रे तकनीभशयन
(v) आप्थेल्ल्मक सहायक
(vi) प्रयोगशाला तकनीभशयन
2 उच्च, तकनीकी भशक्षा एवं कनीय अनुदेशक
कौशल ववकास वविाग
3 श्रम, ननयोजन एवं प्रभशक्षि अनद
ु े शक
वविाग
4 नगर ववकास एवं आवास वविाग पाइप लाईन इंस्पेक्टर
23. In this case we are concerned with rule 5(ii) relating to schedule 1.
24. The requirement of diploma which was mandatory vide Recruitment
Rules of 2015 became minimum qualification for selection to schedule 1 under
the amended rules of 2019. This was coupled with making those who have
'high technical qualification' eligible for participation in the selection process.
Thus, the requirement of compulsorily having a diploma was taken away by
2019 amendment making it a minimum qualification only and additionally
making those having 'high technical qualification' eligible for appointment.
25. There was yet another amendment in the Recruitment Rules of 2015 in
the year 2021 vide notification dated 17 th of November 2021 issued by
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha department of the state
government. Rule 5(ii) and 5(iii) were amended as follows:-
vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, mudk vkosnu i=
>kj[k.M deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx n~~okjk foKkfir vkosnu tek djus dh vafre frfFk
rd fu;ekoyh dh ds in ds fy, U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fof/k
n~~okjk LFkkfir ,oa dsUnz ljdkj@jkT; ljdkj nokjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku vFkok
vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn ¼,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0½ nokjk ekU;rk izkIr
laLFkku ls flfoy@fon~;qr@;kaf=d@d`f"k vFkok lacaf/kr vfHk;kaf=dh esa fMIyksek
dh mikf/kA mPp rduhdh ;ksX;rk/kkjh Hkh vkosnu ds ik= gksxa sA
vH;fFkZ;ksa dks mudk vkosnu i= vk;ksx esa tek gksus dh vafre frfFk rd
fu;ekoyh dh esa vafdr inksa ds fy, ml in ij fu;qfDr gsrq xfBr
fu;ekoyh esa in fo'ks"k ds fy, vafdr U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk rFkk vU;
rduhdh@fof'k"V ;ksX;rk izkIr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA**
26. With regards to the required qualification for induction under schedule 1
category, the following chart would project the amendment from time to time:
-
2015 rules 2019 rules 2021 rules
Rule 5¼ii½ Rule 5(ii)- vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, mudk
vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkosnu i= >kj[k.M deZpkjh p;u vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, mudk vkosnu i=
vk;ksx esa vkosnu vk;ksx }okjk foKkfir vkosnu tek >kj[k.M deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx n~~okjk
i= tek gksus dh djus dh vafre frfFk rd fu;ekoyh dh foKkfir vkosnu tek djus dh vafre
vafre frfFk rd ds in ds fy, frfFk rd fu;ekoyh dh ds
fof/k n~okjk LFkkfir in ds fy, U
vFkkZr ,oa dsUnz ljdkj@jkT; ljdkj n~okjk fof/k n~~okjk LFkkfir ,oa dsUnz
ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku vFkok vf[ky ljdkj@jkT; ljdkj nokjk ekU;rk
Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ¼,0 vkbZ0 izkIr laLFkku vFkok vf[ky Hkkjrh;
lh0 Vh0 bZ0½ n~okjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn
ls flfoy@fon~;qr@;kaf=d@d`f"k vFkok ¼,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0½ nokjk ekU;rk izkIr
lacaf/kr vfHk;kaf=dh esa fMIyksek dh laLFkku ls
mikf/k A mPp rduhdh ;ksX;rk/kkjh Hkh flfoy@fon~;qr@;kaf=d@d`f"k vFkok
vkosnu ds ik= gksaxsA** lacaf/kr vfHk;kaf=dh esa fMIyksek dh
mikf/kA mPp rduhdh ;ksX;rk/kkjh Hkh
vkosnu ds ik= gksaxsA
**fu;e 5 ¼iii½ **vH;fFkZ;ksa dks mudk
vkosnu i= vk;ksx esa tek gksus dh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks mudk vkosnu i= vk;ksx
vafre frfFk rd fu;ekoyh dh esa tek gksus dh vafre frfFk rd
esa vafdr inksa ds fy, ml fu;ekoyh dh esa vafdr
in ij fu;qfDr gsrq xfBr fu;ekoyh inksa ds fy, ml in ij fu;qfDr gsrq
esa in fo'ks"k ds fy, vafdr U;wure xfBr fu;ekoyh esa in fo'ks"k ds fy,
'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk rFkk vU; vafdr U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk rFkk
rduhdh@fof'k"V ;ksX;rk izkIr djuk vU; rduhdh@fof'k"V ;ksX;rk izkIr
vfuok;Z gksxkA** djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA**
27. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions and the facts of the case , the
following issues arise for consideration before this Court:
i. Whether the writ petition as framed is
maintainable?
ii. Whether the Road Construction Department is a
necessary party in the present case?
iii. Whether on true interpretation of the Rules of
2015 read with Rule of 2019 and 2021 the direct
B.Tech holders are excluded from participation
in the selection process?
28. Issue no.(i)
A. This Court finds that in the present writ petition, the petitioner is
primarily seeking interpretation of the words "उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी भी
आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे", that is, "candidates with high technical
qualification will also be eligible". The petitioner is seeking an
interpretation of the aforesaid provisions so as to exclude those
candidates who are having direct B.Tech after Class XII and thus do
not have their B.Tech degree routed through the channel of diploma. It
is also the case of the petitioner that several candidates who are known
to the petitioner having qualification of B.Tech degree have filled up
the form and their applications have been accepted by the respondent
JSSC. This Court finds that as per the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent JSSC, there is no exclusion of direct B.Tech degree holders
from participation in the selection process.
B. This Court finds that large number of candidates having direct B.Tech
degree have filled up the form and their forms have been accepted by
the respondent JSSC. However, such candidates have not been made
party respondents in the present case, much less by at least impleading
some of them who could represent the case of the direct B.Tech
degree holders.
C. This Court is of the considered view that direct B.Tech degree holders
are necessary party in the present case. The nature of relief sought for
in this writ petition has a direct bearing on the candidature of direct
B.Tech degree holders. In absence of such necessary party, this Court
is of the considered view that the present writ petition as framed is not
maintainable.
The issue no.(i) is decided against the petitioner.
29. issue no.(ii)
I. The selection process is governed by the Recruit Rules of 2015 as
amended from time to time.
II. Clause 3 of the advertisement indicates the advertised posts relate
to Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Urban Development
and Housing Department and also Agriculture, Animal Husbandry
and Cooperative Department.
III. So far as post with which the petitioner is concerned, i.e. Junior
Engineer (electrical) (Group-'Kha' Non gazetted) in Urban
Development and Housing Department. Consequently, the
petitioner did not make Road Construction Department as party
respondent in the case.
IV. It has been argued by the respondents that the education qualification
for the post in the examination rules and also in the advertisement has
been fixed in accordance with the provisions laid down by
Jharkhand Junior Engineering Cadre (Junior Engineer, Civil /
Electrical/Mechanical) Service Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to
as the Service Rules of 2013) as framed by the Road Construction
Department, Government of Jharkhand vide its Notification dated
16.01.2014 as amended by the Notification dated 21.01.2022. It has
been argued that the aforesaid Service Rules of 2013 framed by Road
Construction Department also prescribes the minimum technical
qualification which is the same as involved in the present case and
therefore, the interpretation of "high technical qualification" can be
clarified by the Road Construction Department, Government of
Jharkhand. For this purpose, they have relied upon the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 786
(Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of
Revenue) to submit that those parties whose action is to be reviewed
and those who are interested and affected thereby, and in whose
possession the records of such action remain, are not only proper, but
necessary parties. In AIR 1963 SC (supra) it has been held as under:-
"................... Those parties whose action is to be
reviewed and who are interested therein and affected
thereby, and in whose possession the record of Such
action remains, are not only proper, but necessary
parties. It is to such parties that notice to show cause
against the issuance of the writ must be given, and
they are the only parties who may make return, or
who may demur. The omission to make parties those
officers whose proceedings it is sought to direct and
control, goes to the very right of the relief sought. But
in order that the court may do ample and complete
justice, and render judgment which will be binding on
all persons concerned, all persons who are parties to
the record, or who are interested in maintaining the
regularity of the proceedings of which a review is
sought, should be made parties respondent............."
By referring to the aforesaid Service Rules of 2013 framed by Road
Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, it has been
submitted that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
V. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
has applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the
Department of Energy and Urban Development and Housing which
has no concern either with the Service Rules of 2013 framed by the
Road Construction Department or even with the Road Construction
Department and therefore Road Construction Department is neither
necessary party nor proper party to the present case.
VI. This Court finds that the advertisement was issued with respect to
various departments including Drinking Water and Sanitation
Department, Road Construction Department, Urban Development and
Housing Department etc. but the petitioner had applied for the Urban
Development and Housing department falling under Clause 6,
Schedule 1 to the Rules of 2015 as amended in 2019 and in 2021. The
schedule as it stood in the Recruitment Rules of 2015 stood amended
vide notification dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-5). This court finds
that Clause 1 of Schedule 1 to the amended Recruitment rules of 2015
refers to the aforesaid Service Rules of 2013 framed by the Road
Construction Department but for the post of Junior Engineer
(Electrical) for which the petitioner has applied falls under Clause 6
for recruitment in Urban Development and Housing Department
where there is no reference of aforesaid Service Rules of 2013 framed
by the Road Construction Department. The petitioner being the
applicant under Clause 6 of the said Schedule to the Recruitment
Rules of 2015 as amended vide notification dated 25.10.2019
(Annexure-5) has nothing to do with the aforesaid Service Rules of
2013 framed by Road Construction Department.
VII. This Court also finds that nothing has been brought on record by the
respondents to show that Service Rules of 2013 framed by the Road
Construction Department as amended vide Notification dated
21.01.2022 and vide Notification dated 20.04.2023 was ever made
applicable to the Urban Development and Housing Department. This
is over and above the fact that Clause 1 of the Schedule specifically
mentions about the Service Rules of 2013 framed by Road
Construction Department but Clause 6 thereof relating to Urban
Development and Housing Department does not refer to the Service
Rules of 2013 framed by Road Construction Department.
VIII. This Court is of the considered view that it is the Recruitment Rules
of 2015 as amended from time to time are the Rules which governs
the case of the petitioner seeking recruitment to the post of Junior
Engineer under Urban Development and Housing Department and has
nothing to do with the Service Rules of 2013 framed by Road
Construction Department and under such circumstances, Road
Construction department is neither a necessary party nor a proper
party.
IX. The Recruitment Rules of 2015 as amended is required to be read
with the Service Rules of 2013 as framed by the Road Construction
Department when it comes to Clause 1 of the Schedule-1 to the
Recruitment Rules of 2015 as amended but have no applicability to
recruitment under Clause 6 of the Schedule-1 to the Recruitment
Rules of 2015, as amended. However, it is observed that the
eligibility criteria as mentioned in the Service Rules of 2013 as
framed by the Road Construction Department is Pari Materia with the
eligibility criteria mentioned in the Recruitment Rules of 2015 as
amended and also the advertisement involved in this case.
X. This Court further finds that as per the Recruitment Rules of 2015 as
amended from time to time, it has been specifically provided under
Rule 14 thereof that in case of any doubt with regard to any of the
Clause of the Rules, the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department would consider such doubt and the decision of
the said department would be final. This court is of the considered
view that on the face of Rule 14, the Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha Department cannot take a stand that the
provision of the rule is to be explained by the Road Construction
Department merely because there is a reference of Service Rules of
2013 framed by the Road Construction Department in Clause 1 of the
Schedule-1 to the Recruitment Rules of 2015 as amended.
XI. On the face of Rule 14 of the Recruitment Rules of 2015 as amended,
even for the recruitment under Clause 1 of the Schedule-1 to the
Recruitment Rules of 2015 which refers to Service Rules of 2013 as
framed by the Road Construction Department, doubt, if any, with
regard to any of the Clause of the Recruitment Rules of 2015 as
amended is to be clarified by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha Department and such decision would be final.
XII. Accordingly, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand through its Secretary-
respondent no.2 has been rightly made party in the present case and
there was no need to make the Road Construction Department as a
party respondent. The stand of the respondent no.2 in the counter
affidavit that the clarification with regards to the eligibility is to be
given by the Road Construction Department is not acceptable to this
Court, hence rejected.
XIII. It was for the respondent no.2 to take a definite stand in connection
with the case of the petitioner but having not done so they have
abdicated their responsibilities conferred upon them vide Rule 14 of
the Recruitment Rules 2015 as amended from time to time by merely
stating that it was for the Road Construction Department to clarify the
position. The Respondent no.2 has not brought on record anything to
show as to how the petitioner is governed by the Service Rules of
2013 framed by the Road Construction Department particularly when
the Rules framed by the Road Construction Department does not find
mention in Clause 6 of Schedule 1 to the Recruitment Rules of 2015
as amended from time to time.
XIV. The Recruitment Rules of 2015 as amended from time to time further
provides in Rule 15 that in case of any difficulty, appropriate orders
can be issued by the State Government but such orders shall not be
contrary to the provisions of the Rules and such orders would be for
the purpose of removing the difficulty in implementing the rules. It
also provides that such direction of the State government is also
required to be published in official gazette.
XV. In view of the aforesaid findings, this court is of the considered view
that the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand is
neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the present case.
The issue no.(ii) is accordingly decided against the respondents and
in favour of the petitioner.
30. Issue no.(iii)
a) The relevant clause of the advertisement is column no. 4 of clause 6
which provides the required educational qualification for appointment
on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Urban Development
and Housing Department of the State of Jharkhand. Column 4 of Clause
6 of the advertisement has been quoted above. The prescribed minimum
qualification is diploma in electrical engineering from recognized
university/institute. Additionally, it has been provided that the
candidates having 'high technical qualification' in the concerned branch
will also be eligible to apply.
b) From the perusal of the aforesaid comparative table furnished by the
petitioner with regards to channel -1 and channel -2 to obtain a B. Tech
degree, it is apparent that as per channel -1, after matriculation
examination, a candidate interested in engineering has an option to
apply for diploma/polytechnic and thereupon apply for Bachelor of
Engineering/Bachelor of Technology with three years' course and is
also eligible to take up higher post-graduate education by way of
master's in engineering/masters in technology and further Ph.D. Under
channel-2 a candidate after 10th examination undertakes
12th/intermediate examination and thereafter, is entitled to undertake
four years' course by way of Bachelor of Engineering/Bachelor of
Technology and further, such candidate is entitled to higher education
of masters of engineering/masters of technology and then Ph.D. Thus,
for the candidates through channel -1 who are diploma holders, they
have three years' bachelor's degree in Bachelor of
Engineering/Bachelor of Technology and for the candidates through
Channel - 2, who undertake direct B-Tech Degree, it is a four years'
course of Bachelor of Engineering/Bachelor of Technology.
c) It is not the case of the petitioner that direct B.Tech degree holders do
not have the 'high technical qualification'. Rather the specific case of
the petitioner is that the direct B.Tech holders are disqualified on
account of the reason that they have not acquired such high qualification
through the channel of holding a diploma and for this purpose, the
petitioner has referred to the legal maxim "Noscitur a sociis" to submit
that the 'high technical qualification' should be read in association with
the requirement of having a diploma being the prescribed minimum
qualification in the sentence preceding the provision made by which the
candidates having 'high technical qualification' have also been made
eligible. It is the case of the petitioner that in case where the meaning is
doubtful, the rule of construction through legal maxim "Noscitur a
sociis" is to be used.
d) This Court finds that the terminology used in the Recruitment Rules of
2015 as amended is "उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे" and the
terminology used in the advertisement is "संबंधित शाखा में उच्च तकनीकी
योग्यता िाररत करने वाले अभ्यथी िी आवेदन दे ने के पाि होंगे।". In the aforesaid
phrase i.e. "उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र होोंगे", the petitioner is
trying to give it an interpretation so as to read "उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी" to
be confined to only those candidates who acquire 'high technical
qualification' through the channel of diploma.
e) This Court is of the considered view that such kind of interpretation is
misplaced and would amount to re-writing the eligibility clause itself.
f) This Court finds that there is no confusion with the terminology used in
the eligibility criteria. Upon plain reading, it not only entitles diploma
holders to participate in the selection process but also allows individuals
with 'high technical qualification' to participate in the selection process.
It is not the case of the petitioner that direct B.Tech degree holders do
not come within the meaning of 'high technical qualification'. The
aforesaid principle of "Noscitur a sociis" has been explained by justice
G.P. Singh in the book namely, "Principles of Statutory
Interpretation" 13th Edition in the following words:
Noscitur a Sociis
The rule of construction noscitur a sociis as explained by LORD
MACMILLAN means: "The meaning of a word is to be judged by the
company it keeps". As stated by the Privy Council: "it is a legitimate
rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with
reference to words found in immediate connection with them". It is a
rule wider than the rule of ejusdem generis; rather the latter rule is
only an application of the former. The rule has been lucidly explained
by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. in the following words: "This rule,
according to MAXWELL, means that when two or more words which
are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are
understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take as it were
their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to
a sense analogous to a less general. The same rule is thus interpreted
in Words and Phrases, "Associated words take their meaning from
one another under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the philosophy of
which is that the meaning of the doubtful word may be ascertained by
reference to the meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is
broader than the maxim ejusdem generis." In fact the latter maxim 'is
only an illustration or specific application of the broader maxim
noscitur a sociis'. It must be borne in mind that noscitur a sociis, is
merely a rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is
clear that the wider words have been deliberately used in order to
make the scope of the defined word correspondingly wider. It is only
where the intention of the Legislature in associating wider words with
words of narrower significance is doubtful, or otherwise not clear that
the present rule of construction can be usefully applied. The rule was
recently applied in construing the word 'luxuries' in Entry 62 of List
II of the Constitution which is a term of wide denotation not free from
ambiguity. Further, the rule cannot be used to make one of the
associated words wholly redundant."
g) In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, (1960) 2 SCR 866 : AIR
1960 SC 610 , it has been held that the rule of construction "noscitur a
sociis" has no applicability in cases where the plain meaning of the
words are clear. The principle and its applicability have been explained
in the judgement as under: -
"It is, however, contended that, in construing the
definition, we must adopt the rule of construction
noscuntur a sociis. This rule, according to Maxwell,
means that, when two or more words which are
susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together
they are understood to be used in their cognate sense.
They take as it were their colour from each other, that is,
the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a
less general. The same rule is thus interpreted in Words
and Phrases (Vol. XIV, p. 207):"Associated words take
their meaning from one another under the doctrine of
noscuntur a sociis the philosophy of which is that the
meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by
reference to the meaning of words associated with it; such
doctrine is broader than the maxim Ejusdem Generis." In
fact the latter maxim "is only an illustration or specific
application of the broader maxim noscuntur a sociis". The
argument is that certain essential features or attributes
are invariably associated with the words "business and
trade" as understood in the popular and conventional
sense, and it is the colour of these attributes which is
taken by the other words used in the definition though
their normal import may be much wider. We are not
impressed by this argument. It must be borne in mind that
noscuntur a sociis is merely a rule of construction and it
cannot prevail in cases where it is clear that the wider
words have been deliberately used in order to make the
scope of the defined word correspondingly wider. It is
only where the intention of the legislature in associating
wider words with words of narrower significance is
doubtful, or otherwise not clear that the present rule of
construction can be usefully applied. It can also be
applied where the meaning of the words of wider import is
doubtful; but, where the object of the legislature in using
wider words is clear and free of ambiguity, the rule of
construction in question cannot be pressed into service. As
has been observed by Earl of Halsbury, L.C., in
Corporation of Glasgow v. Glasgow Tramway and
Omnibus Co. Ltd. in dealing with the wider words used in
Section 6 of Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act, 1854, "the
words 'free from all expenses whatever in connection with
the said tramways' appear to me to be so wide in their
application that I should have thought it impossible to
qualify or cut them down by their being associated with
other words on the principle of their being ejusdem
generis with the previous words enumerated". If the
object and scope of the statute are considered there would
be no difficulty in holding that the relevant words of wide
import have been deliberately used by the legislature in
defining "industry" in Section 2(j). The object of the Act
was to make provision for the investigation and settlement
of industrial disputes, and the extent and scope of its
provisions would be realized if we bear in mind the
definition of "industrial dispute" given by Section 2(k), of
"wages" by Section 2(rr), "workman" by Section 2(s),
and of "employer" by Section 2(g). Besides, the definition
of public utility service prescribed by Section 2(m) is very
significant. One has merely to glance at the six categories
of public utility service mentioned by Section 2(m) to
realise that the rule of construction on which the appellant
relies is inapplicable in interpreting the definition
prescribed by Section 2(j)."
h) This Court finds that in the advertisement, the requisite qualification for
the post for which the petitioner has applied is diploma in electricity
from recognized university/ institution. Further it has been provided that
persons having 'high technical qualification' in the concerned field will
also be entitled to participate in the selection process. The advertisement
mentions about the persons having 'high technical qualification' in the
same field but it does not confine it to such persons who acquire such
'high technical qualification' through the channel of diploma. There is
no material on record to suggest that the requisite qualification with
regard to 'high technical qualification' should be confined to those
persons who acquire 'high technical qualification' through the route of
diploma and thereby exclude all the direct B.Tech degree holders, who ,
on the plain reading of the qualification required as per eligibility
criteria are duly qualified. This Court finds that there is no ambiguity
with regards to eligibility condition, which includes persons having a
minimum of diploma, and opens it to candidates having 'high technical
qualification' in the same filed without any further condition or
limitation. This court is of the considered view that no tools of
interpretation is required to interpret plain meaning of the words.
Accordingly, the argument of the petitioner to apply the principle of
"Noscitur a sociis" to interpret the words relating to 'high technical
qualification' in the Recruitment Rules of 2015 as amended or in the
advertisement is rejected.
i) In the unamended rule of 2015 also, candidates having 'high technical
qualification' through channel of Diploma could participate in the
selection process as there was no restriction upon such candidates.
j) The required qualification of diploma in the Recruitment Rules of 2015
was amended vide aforesaid notification dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-5)
and replaced by minimum qualification of diploma and additionally
those persons having 'high technical qualification' were made eligible
to participate in the selection process. On a plain reading of the required
qualification, 'high technical qualification' is not restricted or qualified
with the words that such 'high technical qualification' should be
acquired through the channel of diploma only. The provision to include
persons having 'high technical qualification' is distinct to include more
candidates in the selection process and widen the range of eligible
candidates and it cannot be confined to those persons who acquire 'high
technical qualification' only through the channel of diploma. No
question of equivalence is involved in the present case.
k) On the face of the amendment to the Recruitment Rules of 2015 vide
notification dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-5), it is clear that it seeks to
widen the compass of candidature to also include those having 'high
technical qualification' with no further rider that such 'high technical
qualification' ought to be acquired through the channel of diploma.
l) This court is not inclined to read into the eligibility clause that persons
having 'high technical qualification' ought to have acquired such 'high
technical qualification' through the channel of diploma to be eligible for
participation in the selection process. There is no requirement to give
such an interpretation by resorting to the maxim "Noscitur a Sociis" in
view of the fact that the language as well as the intent of the amendment
in the Recruitment Rules of 2015 vide notification dated 25.10.2019
(Annexure-5) is clear and does not suffer from any ambiguity or
vagueness. The interpretation suggested by the petitioner would amount
to rewriting the Recruitment Rules and would completely exclude direct
B.Tech. Degree holders from the selection process. It is not in dispute
that direct B.Tech. Degree holders possess 'high technical qualification'
but without going through the channel of diploma. There is no merits in
the arguments of the petitioner with regard to issue no. (iii).
31. Having held as aforesaid, it is important to deal with the judgements
relied upon by the petitioner, which in the view of this Court, do not apply to
the facts of this case.
32. Considerations of the judgements relied upon by the petitioner.
A. In "State of Uttarakhand Vs. Deep Chandra Tewari" reported in
(2013) 15 SCC 557 it has been held in paragraph 11 as follows: -
"11. 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 functions attached with the post."
In the aforesaid judgement it has been held that the normal rule is
when particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the
candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be
rejected on that basis; the normal rule would be that candidate with
higher qualification is deemed to fulfil the lower qualification
prescribed for a post provided that higher qualification has to be in
the same channel. Thus, even when there is no provision that the
person having higher qualification would be eligible, as per the
normal rule, if a person has higher qualification through the same
channel, he is deemed to be eligible. This has 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
functions attached with the post.
In the present case, it is neither the case of petitioner nor there is
anything on record to even suggest that the requirement of having a
diploma is relevant for discharge of the functions of the advertised
post and for want of a diploma, the direct B-tech degree holders in the
same field would not be suitable for the post even if the candidate
possesses a 'high technical qualification' being direct B-tech degree
holder. It is not the case of the parties that that 'high technical
qualification' in the same field has no relevance with the functions
attached with the post and therefore the term 'high technical
qualification' should be confined to those who have 'high technical
qualification' through diploma channel only and direct B-tech degree
holders who are having 'high technical qualification' are to be
excluded only because they have not acquired 'high technical
qualification' through diploma.
Thus, the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Deep Chandra Tewari (supra) does not help the petitioner.
Rather the same is against the petitioner when considered in the light
of the provisions involved in this case.
In the present case, the eligibility which was limited to diploma
holders in the Rule of 2015 was extended to the candidates having
'high technical qualification' without putting any condition as to how
and through what channel such a 'high technical qualification' is
obtained. Further, it has been clarified in the advertisement that such
'high technical qualification' should be in the same field, that is, in
the field of electrical engineering, so far as the case of the petitioner is
concerned. Thus, candidates having 'high technical qualification'
from field other than electrical engineering have been excluded. It is
not the case of the petitioner that the direct B-tech Degree Holders are
not suited for the work in terms of their technical qualification or in
any other manner. Rather, their case is that if direct B-tech Degree
Holders are allowed to participate in the selection process through
competition, the diploma holders will be ousted in the competition.
B. In "Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad" reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 404 the prescribed qualification was a 'Matric with
ITI' in the relevant trade; however, in some districts, the candidature
of the candidates having Diploma in Electrical Engineering was
accepted and in other they were not considered eligible. Further,
candidates with ITI in diverse trades were interviewed for the post.
The confusion was resolved by the board by holding that that only an
ITI in the relevant trade, namely, the Electrical trade was the
prescribed qualification specified in the advertisement. The diploma
holders fought for their candidature. In the aforesaid background it
was held that, in absence of such a rule, it would not be permissible to
draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes
the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. Paragraphs 26
and 27 of the aforesaid judgement are quoted as under: -
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which
has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. in the subsequent
decision in Anita'. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the
provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be
permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification
necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower,
qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a
matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to
prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part
of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of
the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a
qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of
the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification
should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the
State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti
K.K. turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower
qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes
a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the
matter, the Division Bench' of the High Court was justified in
reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to
Conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed
qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the division
bench."
"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.5 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 K.K. turned"
In the aforesaid judgment there was no provision to include any
person other than 'ITI in the relevant trades' and there was no
inclusion of diploma holders even if they claimed to have higher
education qualifications and it was the diploma holders who were
fighting for their candidature.
The said judgment does not apply to the facts of this case.
In this case, there is no occasion to presume or to draw an inference
that 'high technical qualification' necessarily presupposes the
acquisition of qualification of diploma holder. Rather, the rule
includes persons with 'high technical qualification' as eligible for
participation in the selection process and the advertisement clarifies
that the 'high technical qualification' should be in the same field i.e.
electrical engineering in this case. In the present case, the rule on
plain reading permits both persons with 'high technical qualification'
diploma holders as well as direct B-tech Degree Holders.
C. "The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd. vs. Md. Asif
Hussain" (L.P.A no 1416 of 2018 decided by Hon'ble Patna High
Court; the decision has been said to be upheld by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P (C) No. 1187 of 2019 vide order dated
22.01.2019.
The appeal was filed against the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition where the petitioners
claimed that since they were in possession of higher qualification of a
degree in electrical engineering they were also entitled to participate
in the process of selection of Junior Electrical Engineer. The dispute
arose out of an Advertisement prescribing the requisite qualification
for recruitment as full time three years diploma in electrical
engineering from recognized institute/college. It was the direct degree
holders who filed the writ petition questioning the action of the
appellant in confining the eligibility qualification to the diploma
holders only. The ground taken was that a degree in electrical
engineering was a higher qualification that subsumed in it the three
years course as a diploma course as the degree course was of four
years. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the learned Writ
Court was set aside by holding that it can be said that the person who
is possessing the qualification of master degree in electrical
engineering may subsume in it a degree of bachelor in engineering
being in line qualification but the same cannot be necessarily
concluded in respect of a diploma course, inasmuch as, degree course
is not in line with a higher qualification of diploma. It was also
observed that for admission in engineering degree course one has to
undergo a different competition as compared to admission in diploma
course; even the minimum qualifications are different. Diploma
course is of three years which is naturally less than that of four years
degree course but to conclude that the diploma course is also included
in a degree course may not be correct unless it is emphasized by way
of an objective and empirical analysis.
This Court finds that the said judgment does not apply to the facts of
this case in as much as the eligibility criteria in the present case is
additionally extended to those who have 'high technical qualification'
and in the case before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, recruitment
process was confined to diploma holders.
D. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Allahabad
High Court in the case of "Deepak Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others" in Writ A No. 24273 of 2018 and analogous cases, 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
where the essential eligibility criteria specified was "diploma
holders in engineering discipline." The writ petitioners in the said
case were degree holders in engineering and asserted that they have
been wrongly ousted and as being degree holders in engineering
they were higher in qualification than diploma holders in
engineering discipline. The learned Single Judge had referred the
matter to larger Bench. One of the issues which was referred was,
whether a degree in the field in question is entitled to be viewed as
a higher qualification when compared to diploma in that field and
whether a degree holder can be held to be ineligible to participate
in the selection process for Junior Engineer in the light of the
statutory rules. In the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Full
Bench it was specifically recorded that the advertisement itself
specifically provided eligibility for candidates having diploma in
civil, electrical, mechanical engineering alone. The Hon'ble Full
Bench after considering the various judgments held that the
specified required qualification was "diploma in engineering and
degree holders were specifically excluded." The Hon'ble Full
Bench also recorded that higher qualification in the same line was
the guiding factor. The Hon'ble Full Bench also recorded that the
only qualification prescribed was diploma in engineering and it
was not the minimum qualification and in fact the State, as an
employer specifically excluded graduates in engineering. It was the
judgement passed in the case of Alok Kumar Mishra vs. State of
UP which has been considered and approved by the Hon'ble Full
Bench.
The said judgements do not apply to the facts of the present case.
As per the rules and the advertisement in the present case, as held
above, the persons holding 'high technical qualification' are
eligible to participate in the selection process without there being
any restriction as to whether they are from the channel of diploma
or direct B-tech Degree Holders.
E. In the judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand
in Writ Petition No. 643 of 2015 the advertisement was for
selection for junior engineers and the compulsory educational
qualification was that the applicant must be diploma holder. The
petitioners who were degree holders also applied but their
candidatures were put to hold as they were found not eligible and
consequently the degree holders filed the writ petitions. The High
Court held that a degree education by no stretch of imagination
could be attributed to the effect that the candidate had attained the
diploma qualification and diploma could not be equated with
degree in the engineering stream. The exception could be made in
such situation where the rules of recruitment contemplate to that
effect.
The said judgment does not apply to the facts of this case. In the
present case, candidates having 'high technical qualification' have
been additionally made eligible in the present case; the rules and
the terms of advertisement do not prescribe that 'high technical
qualification' has to be obtained in the same line as that of diploma
holder. In such circumstances, there is no scope to restrict the
candidature to the candidates having 'high technical qualification'
only to those through diploma and exclude direct B-tech Degree
Holders.
F. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
Writ petition No. 8568 of 2022, the eligibility criteria was diploma
in civil engineering or part time or distance education equivalent to
three year diploma in civil engineering. The petitioners before the
Court were degree holders in civil engineering and were aggrieved
by the eligibility criteria which apparently sought to exclude them.
It was contended that the qualification of degree in civil
engineering was covered by the expression 'any other qualification
recognized as equivalent thereto'.
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that in the judgment
passed in the case of Zahoor Ahmad and Others the Hon'ble Apex
Court rejected the contention that diploma is higher qualification
than the required qualification of ITI and have taken a view that
they were unable to hold that degree in civil engineering was a
higher qualification than diploma in the context of requirement
under recruitment rules.
The Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court also does not
apply to the facts of the present case in as much as the zone of
consideration which have been extended to persons having 'high
technical qualification' in the same field is not restricted to those
who obtained 'high technical qualification' through the channel of
diploma considering the specific rules and the advertisement
involved in the present case.
G. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Single Bench of Rajasthan
High Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 382 of 2022, the
petitioners were the diploma holders. The grievance of the
petitioners was that as per the applicable rules and the
advertisement, only diploma holders were eligible to participate,
but the respondent - Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, vide office
order issued in the midst of the selection process allowed the
degree holders to participate in the selection process. In the
meantime, the Equivalence/Expert Committee opined that it was
neither rational nor justified to exclude candidates holding higher
qualifications than diploma holders in the same discipline. The
office order issued by the Staff Selection Board as well as the
decision of the Equivalence/Expert Committee were also under
challenge. The applicable rules and the advertisement were in
consonance, which clearly provided that the required qualification
was diploma and any other qualification declared equivalent by the
central government/ state government. It was observed that neither
the appointing authority prescribed the qualification of degree as
eligible qualification nor it was there in the rules nor in the
advertisement. There was no quarrel that degree was higher
qualification than diploma. It was held that candidates possessing
degree cannot be allowed to participate in the direct recruitment
through the advertisement in question.
The said judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner.
In the present case the advertisement has clarified by providing that
persons having 'high technical qualification' in the same field are
eligible to participate in the selection process. On plain reading of
the rule and the advertisement, neither the advertisement nor the
Rules provide that such 'high technical qualification' should be
obtained through the channel of diploma so as to exclude direct
B.Tech. degree holders. Thus, direct B.Tech. degree holders are
eligible. The interpretation sought to be given by the petitioner
would amount to rewriting the eligibility criteria as prescribed by
rules/ advertisement involved in this case.
The issue no.(iii) is decided against the petitioner.
33. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings it is held as follows:-
i. The issue no.(i) is decided against the petitioner. The writ petition
as framed is not maintainable in absence of any private party to
represent the case of direct B-tech degree holders whose
candidature under the recruitment rules of 2015 as amended vide
notification dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-5) and in advertisement
no.4 of 2023 is under challenge.
ii. The issue no.(ii) is decided against the respondents. The Road
Construction Department is a not a necessary party.
iii. The issue no (iii) is decided against the petitioner.
iv. On a plain reading of the Recruitment Rules of 2015 read with
amendment vide notification dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-5) and
amendment vide notification dated 17.11.2021 (annexure-6) and
also the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement no. 04
of 2023, direct B. Tech degree holders are eligible to participate
in the selection process.
v. On the plain reading of the eligibility clause, this Court finds that
there is no ambiguity or vagueness in the eligibility criteria as
prescribed in the rule or the advertisement. There is a clear
provision in the rule that "उच्च तकनिकी योग्यताधारी भी आवेदि के पात्र
होोंगे", that is, "candidates with high technical qualification will also
be eligible".
In the advertisement there is a clear provision that "सोंबोंनधत शाखा
में उच्च तकिीकी योग्यता धाररत करिे वाले अभ्यथी भी आवेदि दे िे के पात्र
होोंगे।", that is, "candidates having 'high technical qualification' in
the concerned branch will also be eligible".
vi. On account of the clear provision of the eligibility criteria in the
Recruitment Rules and the advertisement, there is no occasion to
resort to the maxim of "Noscitur a Sociis" to give the eligibility
extended to candidates having 'high technical qualification' a
different meaning other than what appears from the plain
language of the eligibility criteria. Thus, there is no occasion to
limit the applicability of 'high technical qualification' only to
those candidates who have obtained 'high technical qualification'
through the channel of diploma and completely exclude direct B.
Tech degree holders who have also obtained 'high technical
qualification' but not through the channel of diploma.
34. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, there is no merits in
this writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
35. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Saurav/Pankaj/AFR
