Rajasthan High Court
Manish Kumar Aloria S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023/RJJP/000733]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 382/2022
1. Manish Kumar Aloria S/o Shri Kailash Chand Aloria,
Resident Of Samod, Jaipur.
2. Ramkesh Choudhary S/o Shri Shyoji Lal Choudhary,
Resident Of In Front Of Bade Hospital, Nainwa, Bundi.
3. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Balveer Singh Gurjar, Resident Of
Jagdishpura, Karauli, Rajasthan.
4. Hansraj Sidh S/o Shri Bhagwan Nath Sidh, Resident Of
Sidho Ka Bass, Vpo Benisar Tehsil Shridungargarh,
Bikaner.
5. Samaksh Bhardwaj S/o Shri Ramavtar Bhardwaj,
Resident Of Plot No. 30-A, Pratap Nagar, Old Ramgarh
Mod, Jaipur.
6. Manjeet Singh S/o Shri Harphool Singh, Resident Of Ward
No. 13, Jhunjhunu.
7. Yudhishthar S/o Shri Devendra Kumar, Resident Of House
No. 133, Meghwala Pada, Dabla, Jaisalmer.
8. Mohammad Aasif S/o Abdul Rseed, Resident Of B-971,
Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
9. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Dabri,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
10. Khagesh Sharma S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma,
Resident Of Arya Samaj Gali, Deeg, Bharatpur.
11. Ram Lal S/o Shri Prem Das, Resident Of 2 Bpsm,
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
12. Roshan Kumar S/o Shri Kashi Ram, Resident Of Manpura
Bas, Bhalau Teeba, Bhalau Tal, Churu.
13. Lalit Jangid S/o Shri Shishpal Jangid, Resident Of
Navadera Chourya, Ratanpur Road, Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.
14. Magram Poonar S/o Shri Tikku Ram Poonar, Resident Of
B-106, Shankar Nagar, Jhawar Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 24/02/2023 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2023/RJJP/000733] (2 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, (Rssb), Through Its
Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institution
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Ravin Shekhawat S/o Padam Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Karni Colony Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Srimadopur, District
Sikar, Rajasthan-332701.
4. Narendra Saini S/o Bharat Singh Saini, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Swami Dayanand Nagar, Ward No.4, Tijara,
District Alwar (Raj.)
5. Bharat Bhushan Pandey S/o Suresh Chand Pandey, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o 588A, Sukya Nagar, Gopalpura Bye
Pass, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Dashrath Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 53/151, Badrinath Colony, Sagar Road, Amer,
Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Bhupendra Singh S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Vpo Bachhrain, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
8. Pankaj Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Bhootoli District Bharatpur 321642
9. Bhupendra Singh Son Of Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Village Post Bachhren, Tehsil Bhusawar
District Bharatpur (Roll No. 4011358)
10. Narendra Saini Son Of Shri Bharat Singh Saini, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Swami Dayanand Nagar,
Ward No. 4, Tijara District Alwar (Roll No. 405459)
11. Prahlad Singh Achara Son Of Shri Phool Singh Achara,
Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village And Post
Shahpura, Thikaraiya, District Sikar (Rajasthan) (Roll No.
406926)
12. Naresh Kumar Son Of Shri Kishana Ram, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Daudsor, Tehsil
Didwana, District Nagaur (Rajasthan) (Roll No. 402192)
13. Krishna Pal Singh Rathore Son Of Shri Narendra Singh
Rathore, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of 197,
Bemlavaya, Kuradabad Kuraear, Kurawar Girwa District
Udaipur (Roll No. 505553)
14. The Principal Secretary, To Government, Department Of
Personal, Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 24/02/2023 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2023/RJJP/000733] (3 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6161/2022
1. Rahul Aswal S/o Jagmal Aswal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Manohparpur, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Ajit Saini S/o Mr. Moharpal Saini, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Satna, Malakhera, Alwar (Raj.).
3. Vipin Meena S/o Bhandu Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Vpo Jandmohalla Jastana, Tehsil Bonli, Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.).
4. Prithavi Singh S/o Kishor Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Vpo Dabari Vai Jaswantgarh, Ladnun, District Nagaur,
(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Transport Commissioner,
Parivahan Bhawan, 22 Godown, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Durgapura, Jaipur(Raj.)
5. Bhupendra Singh S/o. Om Prakash, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Vpo Bachhren Tehsil Bhusawar District
Bharatpur Pincode 321407.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7078/2022
Pradeep Kumar Dixit S/o Shri Ishwari Prasad Dixit, Aged About
41 Years, Resident Of Flat- G2/plot No. 38, Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Nagar, Badarwaas Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), Through Its
Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institution
(Downloaded on 24/02/2023 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2023/RJJP/000733] (4 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9130/2022
1. Sunil Verma S/o Shri Ramji Lal Verma, Aged About 24
Years, Resident Of New Colony, Tehsil And Village Rajgarh
District Alwar.
2. Ravi Vyas S/o Shri Gautam Vyas, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Karera Road, Bartu Bhim Post Bhim Tehsil
Bhim District Rajsamand,
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, (Rssb), Through Its
Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institution
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11493/2022
1. Yogendra Kumar Agarwal S/o Deen Dayal Agarwal, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Old Bayana Bus Stand, Neemda
Gate, Bharatpur (Raj.).
2. Laxman Singh Bhati S/o Shiv Singh Bhati, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Flat No. 6156, Block -40, Rangoli Garden
Panchyawala, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Tejbhan Singh S/o Rasal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
54, Near Cimmco Nagla, Tej Singh, Bharatpur (Raj.).
4. Meenakshi Sharma W/o Kamal Kumar Mishra, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Plot No. A-19, Aravali Vihar, Vivekanand
Colony, Dausa Khurd, Dausa (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Transport Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
State Agriculture Management Institution Campus,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 24/02/2023 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2023/RJJP/000733] (5 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12859/2022
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Guljhari Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Jat Bhagola, Tehsil Mundawar, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), Through Its
President, State Agriculture Management Institution
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13538/2022
Arun Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Village Manchal, Tehsil Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), Through Its
President, State Agriculture Management Institution
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13928/2022
Tanuj Sharma S/o Shri Gajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Near Gopal Talkies Civil Line, Alwar-301001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), Through Its
Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institution
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig with
Mr. Govind Gupta
Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman with
(Downloaded on 24/02/2023 at 12:42:43 AM)
[2023/RJJP/000733] (6 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Mr. Arjun Singh
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with
Mr. Aamir Khan
Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG assisted by
Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat
Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG assisted by
Mr. Sameer Sharma
Mr. Nalin G. Narain with
Mr. Arpit Jain for RSSB
Mr. Narendra Singh Chaudhary, Sr.
Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Pal Singh for Respondent
No.2 in SBCWP Nos.382/2022 &
7078/2022
Mr. Vigyan Shah with
Mr. Harendra Neel, Mr. Yash Joshi &
Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment RESERVED ON 27/01/2023
Judgment PRONOUNCED ON February,22nd,2023
BY THE COURT
REPORTABLE
1. All these writ petitions referred above involve common
questions of law and fact and therefore, as agreed by learned
counsel for parties, they have been heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of
convenience, facts as pleaded in SB Civil Writ Petition
No.382/2022 have been noticed.
2. The relevant facts under which the spate of controversy in
these writ petitions has arisen are that 197 vacant posts of Motor
Vehicle Sub-Inspector (hereinafter for-short "MVSI") to be
appointed in the Transport Department of the State of Rajasthan,
have been notified vide advertisement No.06/2021 dated
24.11.2021 by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter
[2023/RJJP/000733] (7 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
for-short "RSSB"). In the advertisement, it has been clearly
indicated that such vacant posts are to be filled as per the scheme
and procedure, prescribed under the Rajasthan Transport
Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter for-short "the Rules
of 1963") and as amended time to time. Soon after issuance of
advertisement dated 24.11.2021, a corrigendum advertisement
dated 09.12.2021 was published by the RSSB just to substitute
earlier published qualification of "3 years Mechanical Engineering/
Automobile Engineering diploma or any qualification declared
equivalent by the Central Government/ State Government" with
the qualification of "diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years
course) Or diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the
State Board of Technical Examination (3 years Course) OR any
qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent
by the Central Government or State Government." Soon after
publication of amended advertisement dated 09.12.2021, CWP
No.382/2022 came to be filed, but thereafter, an Office Order
dated 15.12.2021 was issued by the RSSB and by this Order, it
has been declared that candidates having higher educational
qualification than the above notified qualification will also be able
to apply online application forms for the post of MVSI.
Immediately, an application to amend CWP No.382/2022, in order
to assail the Office Order dated 15.12.2021 was moved and the
same was allowed by the Court and therefore, amended writ
petition has been filed, seeking to quash the office order dated
15.12.2021 issued by the RSSB. For ready reference, the
impugned Office order dated 15.12.2021 is being reproduced
hereunder:
[2023/RJJP/000733] (8 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
"राजस्ान करर चारारी चयन ब बोरर
राजय ककषषि प्रब्रबंध स्रबंस्ान प परर सर, दुरार पुरा, जयपुर-302018, फ़ बोन-0141-2552796
क्ररा्रबंक:प.14(98)RSSB/अ्र ना/प परर.षि./र बो.िा.उप.षन./भर्/2021/1467 षदना्रबंक 15-12-2021
-कायार लय आददश:-
र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक क की भर् हदरु ब बोरर ्ड दारा षदना्रबंक 24.11.2021 क बो षिजाषाप्ति जारारी क की
रई है। राजस्ान परषिहन अधारीनस् सदिा षनयर-1963 य्ा स्रबंश बोषधर र्ा राजस्ान
अनु सषू चर क्षदत्र अधारीनस् र्रबंत्रालषयक एि्रबं चरु्र शदर्थ श्रेणारी सदिा (भर् एि्रबं सदिा क की अनय शरश)
षनयर, 2014 कद अनररर इ स पद क की शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा रय यह प्रािधान है षक:-
1. सटदट ब बोरर ऑफ टैकनारीकल एजुकदशन ्ड दारा प्रदत्त ऑट बोर बोबाईल अषभया्रबंषत्रक की (रारीन िषि्य
पाठायकर) रय षरपल बोरा या या्रबंषत्रक अषभया्रबंषत्रक की (रारीन िषि्य पाठायक्रर) रय षरपल बोरा या
उपयर ुक्त षिषियिषयों रय सद षक सारी एक रय ऐ सारी अहर राए्रबं, ज बो कदनद्र सरकार या राजय सरकार ्ड दारा
इनकद सररुलय घ बोषषिर क की रई ह बो ।
उपर बोक्त षनधार पररर शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा कद स्रबंब्रबंध रय यह सपष्ट षकया जारा है षक उक्त
िषर्थ श्रेणरर शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा सद उ उचचरर शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा रखनद िालद अवाले अभय्् भारी र बोटर िाहन
उप षनरारीक्षक कद पद कद षलयद आिददन कर सकदरय ।"
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. After filing the amended writ petition on 18.02.2022, the
Court issued notices and vide order dated 21.03.2022, directed
respondents not to issue the appointment orders to selected
candidates. Thereafter, candidates, who possess degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering and participated in the
recruitment process, moved applications for seeking their
impleadment in the writ petition. Their applications for
impleadment were allowed vide order dated 18.04.2022. During
course of writ petition, the Court vide order dated 03.08.2022
directed the RSSB to refer the matter to the Department of
Personnel (DOP) under Rule 36 of the Rules 1963 seeking the
opinion on the point as to whether persons having higher
educational qualification i.e. degree in mechanical engineering are
eligible to apply for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector under
the Rules of 1963 and vide same order dated 03.08.2022, the
Court impleaded the Department of Personnel as party respondent
[2023/RJJP/000733] (9 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
in the writ petition. In compliance thereof, issue was placed before
DOP and, Joint Secretary, DOP, Government of Rajasthan vide
letter dated 30.08.2022 opined that the higher qualified
candidates would be treated as eligible to participate in the
recruitment process on the post of MVSI. Since the opinion of DOP
vide letter dated 30.08.2022, travels against the petitioners,
again, in SBCWP No.382/2022, amendment was prayed for to
assail the letter of DOP dated 30.08.2022. The amendment was
allowed and second amended writ petition has been filed on
20.09.2022. Reliefs sought in the amended writ petition are
reproduced hereunder:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition
and issue following writ, order or direction:
(i) Quash and set aside the order dated 15.12.2021
issued by respondent No.2, to the extent by which
candidates who are having higher academic qualification,
than three year mechanical engineering/automobile
engineering diploma may be declared illegal, and the said
candidates may be declared ineligible;
(ii) Quash and set aside the letter dated 30.08.2022
issued by respondent no.15.
(iii) Issue direction to the respondents not to treat the
degree of automobile/mechanical engineering course
equivalent to the diploma in automobile/mechanical
engineering recognized by the State Government or
Central Government and further issue direction to the
respondents to fill the posts as per the law and consider
the candidature of the petitioners who are having the
diploma in mechanical/automobile engineering three
years and give appointment as per their merit;
(iv) Any other relief as this Hon'ble court may deem fit
and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioners."
4. It is important to notice one fact that CWP No.382/2022 has
been filed by petitioners, prior to participate in the examination,
pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.11.2021, wherein
challenge has been made to the Office Order dated 15.12.2021
issued by the RSSB as also the letter dated 30.08.2022 issued by
[2023/RJJP/000733] (10 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
the Department of Personnel and in this writ petition, in the array
of respondents apart from the Transport Department, the RSSB,
the Department of Personnel and private respondents, who are
the degree holders in automobile/mechanical engineering have
also been added as parties. Other writ petitions have been filed by
petitioners at the later stage of recruitment process. Petitioners in
all these writ petitions are possessing the qualification of diploma
in automobile/mechanical engineering and their common
grievance is that the RSSB by issuing the Office Order dated
15.12.2021 has allowed to participate the degree holders in
automobile/mechanical engineering, in the guise of allowing
higher qualified candidates, which is not the prescribed
qualification under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963, whereunder
recruitment process has been initiated. According to petitioners,
requisite qualification under Rule 11 is only diploma in automobile/
mechanical engineering of 3 years' course, therefore, degree
holders in automobile/mechanical engineering may not be held
eligible and cannot be allowed to compete for the post of MVSI
along with diploma holders and further, after initiation of
recruitment process vide advertisement dated 24.11.2021 by
issuing Office Order dated 15.12.2021, in the midway of
recruitment process, the rules of game can not be changed and
thus office order dated 15.12.2021 is against law as also violative
to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963 and is arbitrary, being violative to
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such be quashed.
5. In sum and substance, contentions of petitioners who are
having the qualification of diploma in automobile/mechanical
engineering are that:
[2023/RJJP/000733] (11 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
(I) The office order dated 15.12.2021, issued by the RSSB,
allowing candidates of higher education qualification stands
violative to the prescribed qualification under the Rule 11 of the
Rules of 1963 because when the State Government has not
prescribed any higher education than the diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering under Rule 11 of the Rules of
1963, the RSSB has no power or jurisdiction to prescribe higher
qualification, allowing candidates having higher education to
participate for the post of MVSI in the present recruitment
process-2021.
(II) The qualification as prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules of
1963 for MVSI is essential and requisite qualification which stands
clear by issuance of the notification dated 08 th March, 2019 issued
by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in exercise of
powers under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter for-short "MV Act of 1988") and as such qualification
under Rule 11 may not be misconstrued as "minimum
qualification", but same be treated as "only qualification".
(III) By issuing Office order dated 15.12.2021 virtually the degree
in automobile/mechanical engineering has been treated as
equivalent to the diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering
and therefore, allowing degree holders in automobile/mechanical
engineering to the direct recruitment process of MVSI is injustice
with petitioners as well as violative to Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
(IV) The issuance of office order dated 15.12.2021 virtually
tantamount to changing the rules of game after initiation of the
recruitment process for the post of MVSI, vide advertisement
[2023/RJJP/000733] (12 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
dated 24.11.2021 and therefore, allowing candidates of higher
educational qualification to participate for the post of MVSI by way
of subsequent order is illegal and impermissible in law.
(V) Petitioners have prayed to set aside the office order dated
15.12.2021 and to direct respondents to fill the advertised posts
of MVSI only from candidates possessing the diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering, by excluding candidates
holding degree in automobile and mechanical engineering.
6. Respondents, in one and similar tone, have repelled
contentions of petitioners by following submissions:-
(I) Allowing higher qualified candidates other than the persons
possessing diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering, to
participate in the direct recruitment for the post of MVSI is not
contrary to the prescribed qualifications under Rule 11 of the
amended Rules of 1963 because the prescribed qualification under
Rule 11 is the "minimum qualification" and further, apart from
qualification of diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering
awarded by the State Board of Technical, "any qualification in
either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the Central
Government or State Government" is also prescribed under Rule
11, therefore, the State Government is empowered to allow
candidates of any qualification equivalent to the diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering.
(II) Section 213(4) of the MV Act of 1988 empowers the Central
Government to prescribe the minimum qualification and therefore,
the qualification prescribed vide notification dated 08 th March,
2019 of the Central Government, be understood as minimum
qualification. Since the Section 213(1) of the MV Act of 1988
[2023/RJJP/000733] (13 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
preserves the power of State Government to appoint such officers
as it thinks fit and in the amended Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963,
after prescribing the minimum qualification of diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering awarded by the State Board of
Technical, any other qualification in either of the above disciplines
declared equivalent by the Central Government or the State
Government is also prescribed, which has not been challenged in
these writ petitions, hence the State Government is within its
competence and jurisdiction to allow candidates holding higher
qualification, treating them equivalent to candidates holding
diploma in automobile and mechanical engineering, in the same
discipline.
(III) The concept of "equivalent qualification" may not be
understood as "exact qualification" and on the basis of circular
issued by the AICTE, the Board of technical education, Rajasthan,
has issued instructions to allow lateral entry of diploma holder
directly in the IInd year of degree course, therefore the degree
course in automobile/mechanical engineering, is obviously higher
qualification than diploma course, but pre-supposes acquisition of
lower qualification of diploma and therefore, can not be excluded
because same stands, as equivalent qualification at least.
(IV) It is for the employer and the recruitment agency to adjudge
the eligibility and qualification of candidates, fit for the
appointment. In the present case, the action of RSSB, allowing
candidates possessing higher education than candidates holding
diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering to be eligible for
the post of MVSI, has been approved by the DOP, as well as by the
equivalence committee of the State Government. Therefore, the
[2023/RJJP/000733] (14 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Court must not interfere with the eligibility and qualification
criteria as determined by the employer and recruitment agency,
while exercising its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
(V) In the previous recruitments of MVSI, prior to the present
direct recruitment of 2021, candidates having higher qualification
than three years diploma course were considered eligible
candidates to participate in the direct recruitment on the post
MVSI. The office order dated 15.12.2021 has been issued soon
after the advertisement dated 24.11.2021 to make the aforesaid
position clear. Since the office order has been issued much prior to
the last date of submission of application form, as well as prior to
conducting the written examination on 12.02.2022, therefore, this
can not amount to change the rules of game.
(VI) The equivalence committee/expert committee in its report
dated 14.10.2022 has opined that it is neither rational nor justified
to exclude and treat candidates holding higher qualification than
the diploma holders in the same discipline as ineligible.
Accordingly, the opinion of the DOP vide Letter dated 30.08.2022
as well as office order of the RSSB dated 15.12.2021 may not be
declared invalid or illegal or violative to the Rules of 1963.
7. Taking note of aforestated rival contentions of learned
counsel for both parties, this Court deems it just and proper to
reproduce the letter dated 30.08.2022, issued by the Joint
Secretary, DOP, Government of Rajasthan which is also under
challenge in CWP No.382/2022, which reads as under:-
[2023/RJJP/000733] (15 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
"राजस्ान सरकार
काषरर क (क-2) षिभार
जयपुर षदना्रबंक 30/08/2022
क्ररा्रबंक- प. 17 (14) काषरर क / क-2 /21
सषचद,
राजस्ान करर चारारी चयन ब बोरर,
जयपुर राज० ।
षिषिय:- र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक सारीधारी भर् परारीक्षा 2021 रय राजस्ान प पररिहन अधारीनस्
सदिा षनयर 1963 कद षनयर 36 कद अनररर र रारर दशर न प्रदान स्रबंब्रबंध रय।
स्रबंदभर - आपका पत्र क्ररा्रबंक प. 14(98) RSSB / अ्र ना/प परर०षि०/ र.षि.उप.षन. / भर् /2021 /772 /
23.082022 कद क्रर रय ।
रह बोदय,
उपर बोक्त षिषियानररर र एि्रबं स्रबंदषभर र पत्र कद क्रर रय लदख है षक र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक सारीधारी
भर् परारीक्षा 2021 रय SBCWP NO. 382/2022 रनारीषि कुरार बनार राजस्ान राजय एि्रबं SBCWP
NO. 6161/2022 राहुल अ सिाल बनार राजस्ान राजय प्रकरर्थ श्रेण रय राननारीय राजस्ान उ उचच
नयायालय, जयपुर ्ड दारा पा पररर आददश षदना्रबंक 03.08.2022 कद स्रबंदभर रय र बोटर िाहन उप
षनरारीक्षक सारीधारी भर् परारीक्षा 2021 रय राजस्ान प पररिहन अधारीनस् सदिा षनयर 1963 कद षनयर
36 कद अनररर र ऐ सद अवाले अभय्् षजनह बोनय उ उचच षशक्षा या्रबंषत्रक की अषभया्रबंषत्रक की क की षरत्रिकी की डिगारी प्रााप्ति क की है,
कया इ स भर् हदरु आिददन करनद कद पात्र है अ्िा नहव, कद स्रबंब्रबंध रय काषरर क षिभार का
अषभरर षनम्नानु सार है:-
राजस्ान प पररिहन अधारीनस् सदिा षनयर, 1963 रय षिषहर प्रािधानिषयों कद अनररर र र बोटर िाहन
उप षनरारीक्षक पद क की सारीधारी भर् क की शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा षनम्नानु सार है-
1. Must have passed Secondary Examination of a recognised
Board; and
2. A Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years' course) or a
diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State
Board of Technical Examination (3 year's course)
OR
Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared
equivalent by the Central Government or State Government;
and
3. Working experience of atleast one year in a reputed
Automobile Workshop which undertakes repares of both light
[2023/RJJP/000733] (16 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
motor vehicles, heavey goods vehicles and heavy passenger
motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines; and
4. Must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive Motor
Cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles.
Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to persons
whose names were under consideration for appointment to the
post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles or Assistant Inspector of
Motor Vehicles by whatever names called by the State
Government prior to first day of July, 1989 or to an officer
appointed to such post before the first day of July, 1989 or to
an officer appointed to discharge functions of a non- technical
nature.
अरः र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक पद हदरु स्रबंब्रबंषधर टदर रय षनधार पररर य बोयोगयरा सद उ उचच य बोयोगयराधारारी
वयषक्त क बो भारी पद हदरु र्थ श्रेणत्र राना जायदरा । काषरर क षिभार क की अषध सच
ू ना षदना्रबंक 08.03.2018
्ड दारा उक्त षनयरिषयों रय षिषहर प्रािधानिषयों रय स्रबंश बोधन कर र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक पद कद सभारी
पदिषयों क बो (100 प्रषरशर) सारीधारी भर् सद भरद जानद का प्रािधान षिषहर षकया रया हा।"
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. It is also necessary to take into account the fact available on
record that after issuance of the letter dated 30.08.2022 by the
Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, when the
opinion in this letter traveled against petitioners, reliance was
placed by petitioners on a circular dated 18.10.2021 issued by the
DOP to the effect that in case of any dispute with regard to the
educational qualification and equivalence, the equivalence
committee constituted in pursuance to the circular dated
18.10.2021 shall decide the matter. Therefore, on the prayer of
petitioners and following the circular of DOP dated 18.10.2021,
this Court vide order dated 20.09.2022 directed the Secretary,
DOP to place the matter before the equivalence committee to be
constituted in pursuance to the circular dated 18.10.2021 for
judging the eligibility of candidates, who are having degree in
automobile or mechanical engineering for appointment on the post
[2023/RJJP/000733] (17 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector pursuant to the original
advertisement dated 24.11.2021 and office order dated
15.12.2021. In compliance thereof, a meeting of committee was
organized on 14.10.2022 to adjudge the educational eligibility and
equivalence and following persons participated in the meeting:
(i). Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Swami, Transport Commissioner
(ii). Sh. Mahendra Kumar Khinchi, Additional Transport
Commissioner (Administration)
(iii). Sh. Sanwarmal, Financial Adviser (Transport Headquarter)
(iv). Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, Deputy Transport Commissioner
(Administration)
(v). Sh. Rajiv Tyagi, District Transport Officer (Technical Expert)
(vi). Sh. Yashpal Sharma, Transport Inspector (Technical Expert)
The committee in its report dated 14.10.2022, has opined and
concluded that it is neither rational nor justified to exclude the
degree holders who are higher qualified persons, than diploma
holders to participate in the direct recruitment for the post of
MVSI. The report of expert and equivalence committee dated
14.10.2022 has been placed on record by the counsel for State
along with additional affidavit dated 19.10.2022, which reads as
under:
राजस्ान सरकार
प पररिहन एि्रबं सड़क सुरक्षा षिभार
क्ररा्रबंक एफ 1(95) प परर/र्ा / 2013/94690
जयपुर, षदना्रबंक 14.10.2022
बैठक कायर िाहारी षििरर्थ श्रेण
षरर क (क-2 / िादकरर्थ श्रेण) षिभार कद दूओ न बोट रय राननारीय उ उचच नयायालय जयपुर पारीठ कद ए स.बारी.
ष सषिल पररट याषचका स्रबंखया 382 / 2022 रनारीषि कुरार आल बो पररया और अनय बनार राजय ि अनय कद
स्रबंदभर रय जारारी षदशा- षनददेशिषयों कद क्रर रय आज षदना्रबंक 14.10.2022 क बो अपरानह 4.30 बजद शैषक्षक
अहर रा एि्रबं शैषक्षक सरकक्षरा सषरषर क की बैठक आय बोषजर हुई, षज सरय षनम्नषलषखर अषधकारारीरर्थ श्रेण
उपषस्र रहद:-
1. शारी कनहैया लाल सिारारी , प पररिहन आयुक्त
[2023/RJJP/000733] (18 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
2. शारी रहद नद्र कुरार खवचारी, अपर प पररिहन आयुक्त (प्रशा सन)
3. शारी सा्रबंिररल, षित्तारीय सलाहकार, प पररिहन रुखयालय
4. शारी अरुर्थ श्रेण कुरार शरार , उप प पररिहन आयुक्त (प्रशा सन)
5. शारी राजारीि तयारारी, षजला प पररिहन अषधकारारी (रकनारीक की षिशदषिज)
6. शारी यशपाल शरार , प पररिहन षनरारीक्षक (रकनारीक की षिशदषिज)
● बैठक रय र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक भर् परारीक्षा 2021 कद अनररर र शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा कद स्रबंब्रबंध रय
रैकदषनकल इ्रबंजारीषनय परर्रबंर और ऑट बोर बोबाईल इ्रबंजारीषनय परर्रबंर कद अवाले अभयष्र यिषयों क की पात्ररा कद स्रबंब्रबंध रय
उपषस्र षिषिय पर वयापक षिचार-षिरशर षकया रया ।
● राजस्ान करर चारारी चयन ब बोरर ्ड दारा र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक भर् परारीक्षा , 2021 कद षलए षिजषाप्ति
क्ररा्रबंक 06/2021 षदना्रबंक 24.11.2021 क बो जारारी क की रई ्ारी, षज सरय शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा का षििरर्थ श्रेण
षनम्नानु सार है:-
1. षक सारी रानयरा प्रााप्ति ब बोरर सद द सिारी परारीक्षा उत्तारीर्थ श्रेणर
2. रारीन िषि्य रैकदषनकल इ्रबंजारीषनय परर्रबंर / ऑट बोर बोबाईल इ्रबंजारीषनय परर्रबंर रय षरपल बोरा या भारर
सरकार/ राजय सरकार ्ड दारा घ बोषषिर सरकक्ष य बोयोगयरा ।
● रदननरर षदना्रबंक 15.12.2021 क बो राजस्ान करर चारारी चयन ब बोरर ्ड दारा जारारी स्रबंश बोषधर कायार लय
आददश रय शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा कद स्रबंब्रबंध रय सपष्टारीकरर्थ श्रेण जारारी करकद "उल्लेखित शैक्षखषणिक य योगयत्
से उचच्चतर शैक्षखषणिक य योगयत् रिने ने व्ले अे अभयअभ्यर अभ्यर्थी यर्थी भ्यर्थी भी थी भी म योटर ने व्हन उप खनर्यर्थी भीक्षक के पद के
खलए आने वेदन कर सकंगे।"
● प्रश्नरर याषचका रय पक्षकार अवाले अभयष्र यिषयों ्ड दारा सड़क प पररिहन एि्रबं राजरारर र्रबंत्रालय, भारर
सरकार क की अषध सच ू ना षदना्रबंक 08 राचर 2019 का उललदख कररद हुए रैकदषनकल/ ऑट बोर बोबाइल
षरत्रिकी की डिगारीधारक क बो पात्र राननद पर उक्त अषध सच ू ना का उलल्रबं घन षकया जाना बराया है । जबषक
रथय यह है क की उक्त अषध सच ू ना कयद्रारीय र बोटरयान अषधषनयर क की धारा कद अ्रबंररर र नयन ू रर
शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा का षनधार रर्थ श्रेण कररारी है।
● उक्त अषध सच ू ना राजय सरकार क बो र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक पद क की नय न ू रर शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक
य बोयोगयरा सद उचसरर य बोयोगयरा षनधार परर करनद सद प्रषरब्रबंषधर नहव कररारी है। इ सारी प पररपद परिपेकय रय
राजस्ान करर चारारी चयन ब बोरर ्ड दारा शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा का षनधार रर्थ श्रेण षकया रया है, ज बो क की उषचर है।
● प्राककषरक नयाय कद ष सिदानर एि्रबं वयािहा पररक दृषष्टक बोर्थ श्रेण सद ददखा जाए र बो षक सारी भारी शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक
य बोयोगयरा का षिचार कररद सरय नयन ू रर का हारी षनधार रर्थ श्रेण षकया जारा रहा है। षक सारी भारी पद कद षलए
अहर रा कद नयन ू रर रापदणर हारी षनधार पररर षकया जाना उषचर है। षनधार पररर सद उ उचचरर य बोयोगयरा धारक
अवाले अभयष्र यिषयों क बो अपात्र रानना न र बो रकर स्रबंरर है और न हारी नयाय स्रबंरर ।
● जहा रक र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक पद पर भर् हद रु शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा का प्रश्न है, पि ू र क की भर्
प पररक्षाओ्रबं रय भारी षनधार पररर शैक्षषर्थ श्रेणक य बोयोगयरा क बो नयन ू रर रानरद हुए उ उचचरर य बोयोगयरा धारक
अवाले अभयष्र यिषयों क बो पात्र राना जारा रहा है।
अतः प्रसतत स प्रकरण मक समग्रतं समग्रतापसरगक सूर्वक सभपूर्वक सभी पक सभी पकवक सभी पक्षों पर पक्षों पर वर्षों पर विचं समग्रतार-पक्षों पर वरमरग कक उपरं समग्रतानत सपक्षों पर वमपक्षों पर वत कं समग्रता
पक्षों पर विषकरग ह पक्षों पर वक म मोटर रं समग्रताहि उप पक्षों पर विरपूर्वक सभीक सभी पकक पद हकतस पक्षों पर विनिरं समग्रताग्धाररत रक सभी पकपक्षों पर वणक षणिक य मोिक योगषणिक यतं समग्रता कक सयता के सं के संबयता के संनिर मक
कं समग्रतापक्षों पर वमगक पक्षों पर वरूर्वक सभं समग्रताग दं समग्रतारं समग्रता सपक्षों पर व्षों पर विचर, रं समग्रताजसथं समग्रताि कमग्षों पर विचं समग्रतारपूर्वक सभी ्षों पर विचषणिक यि के संब मोरग क मो पत्र क्रमं समग्रतायता के संक प.17 (14)
कं समग्रतापक्षों पर वमगक / क-2/21 पक्षों पर वदिं समग्रतायता के संक 30.08.2022 दं समग्रतारं समग्रता प्रदत्त अपक्षों पर वूर्वक सभमत समसपक्षों पर व्षों पर विचत ह ।
9. The report of expert/equivalence committee dated
14.10.2022, as extracted hereinabove, was placed on record by
the State along with additional affidavit dated 19.10.2022, has not
been accepted by petitioners in SBCWP No.382/2022, and one of
the petitioner Manish Kumar Aloria has submitted additional
affidavit alleging the report of equivalence committee as arbitrary,
[2023/RJJP/000733] (19 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
discriminatory and beyond the statutory Rules. Learned counsel
for petitioners have argued that in fact the report of equivalence
committee nowhere whispers that the degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering is equivalent qualification with
the diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering and such report
is just an eyewash which does not throw any light on the clinching
issue and as such liable to be discarded.
10. Having heard learned counsel for concerned parties and from
perusal of the record, the question falls for consideration and
requires to be answered by this Court, is that "as to whether by
issuing impugned office order dated 15.12.2021 by the RSSB, in
the midway of recruitment process for the post of MVSI started
vide advertisement dated 24.11.2021, candidates of higher
educational qualification, the degree holders in
automobile/mechanical engineering have been allowed to compete
along with diploma holders in automobile/mechanical engineering
for the post of MVSI, such action is arbitrary, illegal and without
jurisdiction on the part of the RSSB as much as against the
prescribed qualification under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963 as also
violative to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India?"
11. In order to adjudicate and answer the question referred
hereinabove, this Court deems it just and proper to formulate
following issues:-
(I) Whether candidates possessing degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering can be allowed to participate
for the post of MVSI in the present direct recruitment-2021, in
addition to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated
24.11.2021 and issuance of office order dated 15.12.2021 by
[2023/RJJP/000733] (20 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
RSSB after advertisement dated 24.11.2021, for the purpose of
addition of higher educational qualification for the post of MVSI,
other than diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering can be
held to be in consonance with the prescribed qualification under
Rule 11, Schedule-I of the Rules of 1963?
(II) If issue No.(I) is answered in favour of petitioners, what is
the scope of judicial review to intervene in the present dispute,
when the impugned office order dated 15.12.2021 has been
concurred by the DOP vide letter dated 30.08.2022 and the
decision of DOP has been affirmed by the Equivalence Committee
through its report dated 14.10.2022, and whether within the
scope of judicial review, the action of respondents to allow
candidates possessing degree in automobile and mechanical
engineering to participate for the post of MVSI can be declared as
arbitrary, illegal and violative to Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India?
12. These issues are not novel and previously have been
considered in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as by various High Courts in myriad and diverse context.
Plethora of judgments have been referred by counsel for both
sides. Each judgment would be considered and discussed in the
light of real ratio decidendi, in the later part of the judgment at an
appropriate place wheresoever, reference is required. At this
juncture, in order to understand the principles of ratio decidendi
and stare decisis, reference of two celebrated judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court would be apposite.
In case of Krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India [(1990) 4
SCC 207], the Apex Court opined that the ratio decidendi has to
[2023/RJJP/000733] (21 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
be ascertained by analyzing all facts of the case and the process
of reasoning involving the major premise consisting of pre-existing
rule of law, either statutory or judge-made, and a minor premise
consisting of material facts of the case under immediate
consideration. It has been expounded that the enunciation of
reason or principle upon which question before the Court has been
decided is alone binding as a precedent. The relevant portion is
extracted as under:
"The concrete decision alone is binding between the parties to
it but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, as ascertained on a
consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject matter
of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which
when it is clear it is not part of a tribunal's duty to spell out
with difficulty a ratio decidendi in order to bound by it, and it is
always dangerous to take one or two observations out of a long
judgment and treat them as if they gave the ratio decidendi of
the case. If more reasons than one are given by a tribunal for
its judgment, all are taken as forming the ratio decidendi."
The principle of stare decisis has been explained to adhere to
precedent and not to unsettle things which are settled. Apart from
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the policy of Courts is to
stand by the precedent and not to disturb settled point. When
Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to certain
state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all
future cases where facts are substantially the same.
In case of Union of India Vs. Dhanwanti Devi [(1996) 6
SCC 44], the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that what is of the
essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation find
therein in order to what logically follows from the various
observations made in the judgment. Every judgment must be read
as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be
proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be
found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but
[2023/RJJP/000733] (22 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
governed and qualified by the particular facts in which such
expressions to be found.
Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding
force of a decision, it is always necessary to see what were the
facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the
point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is
statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot
be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot be afford to be
static and therefore, Judges are to employ an intelligent technique
in the use of precedents.
13. Coming to facts of the present case, at the outset, it may be
noticed that factual matrix is not disputed to the extent that in the
advertisement No.06/2021 dated 24.11.2021 and as per the
corrigendum advertisement dated 09.12.2021, the prescribed
eligibility and educational qualification to fill up 197 vacant posts
of MVSI are in congruity and similar as mentioned under Rule 11
of the Rules of 1963. It is not in dispute that the Rules of 1963
were framed by the Governor of Rajasthan, in exercise of powers
conferred by the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India
and the Rules have statutory force. Under the Rules of 1963, the
post of MVSI is an encadred post, indicated at serial No.2 in
Schedule-I appended to the Rules. Under Rule 11, academic and
technical qualification for the post of MVSI is prescribed. It may
also be noticed that earlier 25% posts required to be filled by
promotion and 75% posts required to be filled by direct
recruitment, but after issuance of notification date 08.03.2019 by
the DOP, Government of Rajasthan, 100% posts of MVSI required
[2023/RJJP/000733] (23 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
to be filled by Direct Recruitment. In Schedule-I of the Rules of
1963, for the post of MVSI following qualifications are prescribed:-
SCHEDULE
Post from Minimum
Name of Post Source of Qualification for
which experience
Recruitment direct recruitment
appointment and
with percentage
by promotion qualifications
is to be made required for
promotion
1. Motor Vehicle 100% by Motor Vehicle 5 years'
Inspector promotion Sub-Inspector experience on
the post of
mentioned in
Column No.4
2. Motor Vehicle 25% by 1. Must have Lower Confirmed
Sub-Inspector promotion passed Secondary Division LDC
75% by Examination of a Clerks of possessing
direct recognised Board; Transport Diploma or
recruitment and Deparment certificate in
2. A Diploma in Automobile
Automobile Engg.
Deleted Engineering (3 Deleted recognised by
years' course) or a the Govt. of
100% by diploma in Rajasthan
direct Mechanical Or
recruitment Engineering Who have
awarded by the passed a
State Board of Departmental
Technical Examination in
Examination (3 Automobile
years' course) Engineering
Or prescribed by
Any qualification the Transport
in either of the Department of
above disciplines the
declared equivalent Government of
by the Central Rajasthan
Government or
State Government:
and ...............
Deleted
NOTE- It is indicated in the letter of DOP dated 30.08.2022 that the Rules of 1963 have
been amended vide notification dated 08.03.2018 and after amendment, the direct
recruitment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector is 100% , instead of 75%. Thus
consequently, columns No.2, 4 & 5 have been accordingly amended/deleted.
[2023/RJJP/000733] (24 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
14. It has been noticed that prior to coming into force of the MV
Act of 1988, the State Government alone was empowered to
prescribe the qualification for MVSI, however, after coming into
force of the MV Act of 1988, power to prescribe the qualification
has also been entrusted to the Central Government under Section
213(4) of the MV Act of 1988. Section 213 of the MV Act of 1988
deals with the appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers. Sub-section
(1) of Section 213 envisages that the State Government may, for
the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act,
establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers
thereof such persons as it think fit. Sub-section (2) of Section 213
envisages that every such officer shall be deemed to be a public
servant. Sub-section (3) of Section 213 envisages that the State
Government may make rules to regulate the discharge of officers
of the Motor Vehicle Department of their functions. Sub-section
(4) of Section 213 prescribes the powers of the Central
Government that "the Central Government may, taking regard to
objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette prescribe
the minimum qualification which the said officers or any class
thereof, shall posses for being appointed as such. Sub-sections 5
& 6 of Section 213 envisage powers and functions of the officers of
the Motor Vehicles Department. From perusal of aforesaid
provisions, it stands clear that where the central government is
empowered to prescribe the minimum qualification for the officers
to be appointed in the Motor Vehicles Department, the State
Government is also authorized and possesses powers to appoint
such officers in the Department as it think fit. Thus, the State
[2023/RJJP/000733] (25 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Government is not denuded from its powers to prescribe
qualifications in respect of appointment of the MVSI under the
Statutory Rules of 1963, but the only clog on the powers of State
Government, after promulgation of the MV Act of 1988 is that the
State Government cannot prescribe lower qualification than the
minimum qualification as prescribed by the Central Government
under Section 213(4) of the MV Act of 1988. Needless to observe
here that in case, the State Government prescribed any below
qualification than the minimum qualification prescribed by the
Central Government, the same would be repugnant to the central
law and as such would be void and unconstitutional by virtue of
Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
15. The Central Government, in exercise of powers to prescribe
minimum qualification for appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers
under Section 213(4) of the MV Act of 1988, issued a notification
dated 12.06.1989 which was duly published in the Gazette and
came into force w.e.f. 01.07.1989. Thereafter, the notification
dated 12.06.1989 has been amended vide notification dated
08.03.2019 and under the heading "Qualfication" for Serial No.1
to 4 and the entries relating thereto have been substituted. For
ready reference, the notification dated 08.03.2019, on which
petitioners have placed extensive reliance is being extracted
hereunder:
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 8th March, 2019
S.O. 1215(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
(4) of section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), the
Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport
[2023/RJJP/000733] (26 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
and Highways published in the official Gazette vide number S.Ó. 443(E),
dated the 12" June, 1989, namely:-
In the said notification, under the heading 'Qualification', for serial
numbers 1 to 4 and the entries realting thereto, the following serial
numbers and entries shall respectively, be substituted, namely:
"(i) 10th standard pass from any recognised Board; and
(ii) a diploma in Automobile Engineering (three year course).
or
a diploma in Mechanical Engineering (three year course),
awarded by any institution recognised by the Central Government
or State Government; and
(iii) holding a driving license authorising to drive motor cycle with
gear and light motor vehicles."
[F. No. RT-11036/62/2018-MVL]
PRIYANK BHARTI, Jt. Secy
Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, Part II Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) vide S.O. 443(E), dated the
12th June, 1989."
16. The State Government has revised the earlier prescribed
qualification by issuing notification dated 03.04.1992 and which
was further amended vide notification dated 20.08.1993 and
presently the prescribed academic and technical qualification for
the post of MVSI by the State Government which are in force,
have already been extracted hereinabove in Para-13, while
reproducing the Schedule-I of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963.
17. Since, in these writ petitions, the controversy is confined to
higher education to the degree of automobile/mechanical
engineering, therefore, this Court is focusing in the differentia
between the qualification prescribed by the Central Government
vide notification dated 08.03.2019 and the qualification prescribed
by the State Government under Rule 11, Schedule-I of the Rules
of 1963 as amended and the only difference may be noticed as
under:
"A Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years' course) or
a diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State
Board of Technical Examination (3 year's course)
OR
[2023/RJJP/000733] (27 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared
equivalent by the Central Government or State
Government; and......"
So it stands clear that the State Government has added
following additional qualification:-
"Any qualification in either of the above disciplines
declared equivalent by the Central Government or State
Government..."
Issue No.(I):-
18. The bone of contentions of learned counsel for petitioners is
that the qualification of 3 years' course of diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering is essential and requisite for
the post of MVSI and any other qualification in addition to or any
higher qualification like the degree in automobile/mechanical
engineering travels beyond the qualification prescribed by the
Central Government vide notification dated 08.03.2019 and
cannot be said to be in consonance with the qualification
prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963. Therefore, their
prayer is that allowing candidates having degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering to participate in the direct
recruitment-2021 for the post of MVSI, in the guise of allowing
candidates having higher education, by way of issuing office order
dated 15.12.2021, is arbitrary & illegal and therefore, the degree
holders be excluded from participation in the present recruitment
process which had been started with the issuance of
advertisement dated 24.11.2021.
19. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, the
RSSB as also the private respondents i.e. degree holders
[2023/RJJP/000733] (28 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
contended that the degree in automobile/mechanical engineering,
being higher educational qualification than the diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering, pre-supposes the prescribed
qualification as delineated in the notification dated 08.03.2019 of
the Central Government and further in Schedule-1 of Rule 11 of
the Rules of 1963, the State Government has prescribed "OR Any
qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent
by the Central Government or State Government", therefore, the
degree at least may be categorized as the equivalent qualification
as declared by the State Government because the degree is in the
same discipline of the automobile/mechanical engineering. Thus,
according to respondents, the higher qualification of degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering, pre-supposes the acquisition
of minimum qualification of diploma in automobile/mechanical
engineering, and the State Government and the RSSB are within
their powers and jurisdiction to allow candidates, having higher
qualification than the prescribed qualification of diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering, to participate in the present
recruitment process. In the recruitment of previous years, the
degree holders were permitted to participate, therefore, by way of
issuance of office order dated 15.12.2021 by the RSSB, only
clarification has been made that the candidates having higher
qualification in the same discipline of the diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering will also be eligible to apply
for the post of MVSI. Thus, the same is neither derogatory to the
minimum qualification prescribed in the notification dated
08.03.2019 nor can be assumed to be contrary or in excess to the
[2023/RJJP/000733] (29 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
prescribed qualification under the Schedule-I of Rule 11 of the
Rules of 1963.
20. On facts of present case, because the spate of controversy
has arisen due to issuance of office order dated 15.12.2021 by the
RSSB, impugned herein, and State has supported the order,
therefore, the burden lies on respondents to justify the action of
RSSB. Hence by priority it would be apposite to consider and
discuss judgments referred and relied upon by the respondents to
support their stand.
21. Learned counsel for respondents jointly and extensively
have placed reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court
expounded in case of S. Satyapal Reddy Vs. Government of
A.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 391] and on the strength of the principle of
stare decisis would contend that the issue as to whether the State
Government can prescribe for equivalent qualification or higher
qualification to be the eligibility qualification considering
notification prescribed by the Central Government under Section
213(4) of the MV Act of 1988, is no more res integra. In that case,
candidates who possessed only the qualification of diploma in
mechanical engineering and had applied for the recruitment to the
post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector in the Andhra
Pradesh Transport Subordinate Services, questioned the
competence of degree in automobile and mechanical engineering
or diploma in automobile and mechanical engineering or any
equivalent qualification as conditions for recruitment and
contended that it was the Central Government which had been
conferred with powers under Section 213(4) of the MV Act of 1988
[2023/RJJP/000733] (30 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
that prescribing the qualification for appointment as officers or
class of officers under the MV Act of 1988. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, also allowed candidates possessing degree in automobile
and mechanical engineering to participate in the recruitment
process. The question arose as to whether the qualification
prescribed by the State Government under powers of Section
213(1) of the MV Act of 1988, is in conflict with the qualification
prescribed by the Central Government under Section 213(4) of the
MV Act of 1988. Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the issue in detail
and observed that the State Government may accept the
qualifications as prescribed by the Central Government or may
also prescribe higher qualifications, but in no case prescribe any
qualification lesser than the qualification prescribed by the Central
Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the MV Act of
1988. Prescribing lesser qualification by the State Government,
would be in collusion to the minimum qualification prescribed by
the Central Government as such same would not be sustainable.
The Apex Court held that when the Rules made by the Central
Government under Section 213(4) and the Statutory Rules made
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are
construed harmoniously, there is no incompatibility or
inconsistency in the operation of both rules to appoint eligible
persons to posts or class of officer of the State Government, vis a
vis as per qualification prescribed by the Central Government
under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the MV Act of 1988. For
ready reference, relevant paragraphs No.5, 6, 7 & 8 of the
judgment are being reproduced hereunder:
[2023/RJJP/000733] (31 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
"5. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective
contentions, we find that the State's contention merits
acceptance. It is seen that marginal note in Section 213 for
"appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers" indicates the
subject-matter of the section. Sub-section (1) says that the
State Government may, for the purpose of carrying into effect
the provisions of this Act, establish Motor Vehicles
Department and "appoint as officers thereof such persons as
it thinks fit". The power of appointment includes the power to
select a fit and competent person who it thinks fit to hold the
post and would discharge efficiently the functions assigned
under the Act. It includes the power to prescribe
qualifications to select suitable officers. The Parliament
preserved that power to the State Government under Section
213(1) itself by allowing it to appoint the officers whom it
finds fit to carry into effect the provisions of the Act. Sub-
section (4) gives power to the Central Government, having
regard to the object of the Act, by a notification in the Official
Gazette "to prescribe minimum qualification" which the
officers or class of officers thereof shall possess for being
appointed as such officer or to the cadre belonging to the
State Government. Under Entry 41 of List 11 (State List) of
VIIth Schedule to the Constitution, the public service includes
the services of the officers to be appointed under sub-section
(1) of Section 213 of the Act. No doubt, as contended by the
learned counsel for the appellants that the Act receives
paramountcy, since under Entry 35, the subject under the Act
covers the concurrent field. Sub-section (4) of Section 213
also preserves the power to prescribe qualifications higher
than that"minimum qualification" prescribed by the Central
Government to appoint the "said officers or any class thereof
shall possess for being appointed as such".
6. In Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon [(1971) 2 SCC 779]
considering the scope of Article 246 of the Constitution, a
Bench of seven Judges of this Court held thus:
"Reading Article 246 with the three lists in the VIIth
Schedule, it is quite clear that Parliament has exclusive
power to make laws with respect to all the matters
enumerated in List I and this notwithstanding anything
in clauses (2) and (3) of Article 246. The State
Legislatures have exclusive powers to make laws with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II,
but this is subject to clauses (1) and (2) of Article 246.
The object of this subjection is to make parliamentary
legislation on matters in Lists I and III paramount.
Under clause (4) of Article 246 Parliament is
competent also to legislate on a matter enumerated in
State List for any part of the territory of India not
included in a State. Article 248 gives the residuary
powers of legislation to the Union Parliament."
7. It is thus settled law that Parliament has exclusive power
to make law with respect to any of the matters enumerated
in List I or concurrent power with the State Legislature in List
III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution which shall
prevail over the State law made by the State Legislature
exercising the power on any of the entries in List 111. If the
[2023/RJJP/000733] (32 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
said law is inconsistent with or incompatible to occupy the
same field, to that extent the State law stands superseded or
becomes void. It is settled law that when Parliament and the
Legislature derive that power under Article 246(2) and the
entry in the Concurrent List, whether prior or later to the law
made by the State Legislature, Article 246(2) gives power, to
legislate upon any subject enumerated in the Concurrent List,
the law made by Parliament gets paramountcy over the law
made by the State Legislature unless the State law is
reserved for consideration of the President and receives his
assent. Whether there is an apparent repugnance or conflict
between Central and State laws occupying the same field and
cannot operate harmoniously in each case the court has to
examine whether the provisions occupy the same field with
respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent
List and whether there exists repugnancy between the two
laws. Article 254 lays emphasis on the words "with respect to
that matter". Repugnancy arises when both the laws are fully
inconsistent or are absolutely irreconcilable and when it is
impossible to obey one without disobeying the other. The
repugnancy would arise when conflicting results are produced
when both the statutes covering the same field are applied to
a given set of facts. But the court has to make every attempt
to reconcile the provisions of the apparently conflicting laws
and court would endeavour to give harmonious construction.
The purpose to determine inconsistency is to ascertain the
intention of Parliament which would be gathered from a
consideration of the entire field occupied by the law. The
proper test would be whether effect can be given to the
provisions of both the laws or whether both the laws can
stand together. Section 213 itself made the distinction of the
powers exercisable by the State Government and the Central
Government in working the provisions of the Act. It is the
State Government that operates the provisions of the Act
through its officers. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 213
gives power to the State Government to create Transport
Department and to appoint officers, as it thinks fit. Sub-
section (4) thereof also preserves the power. By necessary
implication, it also preserves the power to prescribe higher
qualification for appointment of officers of the State
Government to man the Motor Vehicles Department. What
was done by the Central Government was only the
prescription of minimum qualifications, leaving the field open
to the State Government concerned to prescribe if it finds
necessary, higher qualifications. The Governor has been given
power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,
subject to any law made by the State Legislature, to make
rules regulating the recruitment which includes prescription of
qualifications for appointment to an office or post under the
State. Since the Transport Department under the Act is
constituted by the State Government and the officers
appointed to those posts belong to the State service, while
appointing its own officers, the State Government as a
necessary adjunct is entitled to prescribe qualifications for
recruitment or conditions of service. But while so prescribing,
the State Government may accept the qualifications or
prescribe higher qualification but in no case prescribe any
qualification less than the qualifications prescribed by the
[2023/RJJP/000733] (33 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of
the Act. In the latter event, i.e., prescribing lesser
qualifications, both the rules cannot operate without colliding
with each other. When the rules made by the Central
Government under Section 213(4) and the statutory rules
made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are
construed harmoniously, there is no incompatibility or
inconsistency in the operation of both the rules to appoint fit
persons to the posts or class of officers of the State
Government vis-a-vis the qualifications prescribed by the
Central Government under subsection (4) of Section 213 of
the Act.
8. It is seen that A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules
have been made by the Governor exercising the power under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and Rule 6 thereof
prescribes the qualifications as enumerated above. Graduation
in Mechanical Engineering is one of the higher qualifications
than Diploma. Since Section 213(4) gives such power to the
State Government by operation of Section 217 of the Act, the
statutory rules remain valid and operate in the field without
colliding with the Central rules. Both the rules would operate
harmoniously and effect can be given to both the rules. Thus
the question of inconsistency or repugnancy under Article 254
of the Constitution does not arise. Therefore, we do not find
that there is any conflict in the exercise of power by both
Central and State Governments or inconsistency in operation
of the provisions of the statutory rules made by the Governor
under proviso to Article 309 and the rules made by the Central
Government under Section 213(4) of the Act. The recruitment
as per State rules is valid and legal."
After going through the entire judgment and the ratio
decidendi, this Court has noted that in case of S. Satyapal
Reddy (Supra), the State of Andhra Pradesh itself prescribed the
qualification of degree in mechanical engineering or degree in
automobile engineering as competent and eligibility to apply for
the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Andhra Pradesh
and in that context, powers of State Government to prescribe the
additional or higher qualification vis-a-vis powers of Central
Government to prescribe the minimum qualification were the focus
of adherence by the Hon'ble Apex Court. But in the case at hand,
the Government of Rajasthan has not prescribed the qualification
of degree in automobile/mechanical engineering as an eligible
[2023/RJJP/000733] (34 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
qualification for the post of MVSI along with qualification of
diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering. As a matter of
fact, it is the RSSB, the Recruitment Agency only, by way of
issuance of office order dated 15.12.2021, has inserted the
qualification of higher education than the diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering in addition to qualifications as
prescribed in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021. And when the
action of the RSSB has been put to challenge, then in the reply to
writ petitions, the State of Rajasthan has supported the office
order dated 15.12.2021.
The DOP has issued letter dated 30.08.2022 during the
course of writ petition and Equivalence Committee has given its
report dated 14.10.2022 in compliance of directions of this Court
vide order dated 20.09.2022. Thus the State Government which is
appointing authority did not prescribe the qualification of degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering as eligible qualification,
neither in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021 nor in the Rules of
1963. The issuance of letter of DOP dated 30.08.2022
subsequently and in midway of selection process, during the
course of writ petition. The ratio decendidi of this judgment would
have been squarely applicable to the present case, if the State
Government itself would have been prescribed the qualification of
degree in automobile/mechanical engineering being higher
qualification, as an eligibility along with diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering, either in the advertisement
dated 24.11.2021 itself, while initiating the recruitment process or
in the statutory Rules, by way of passing separate notification.
[2023/RJJP/000733] (35 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Therefore, in absence of any such prescribed eligibility in the
advertisement dated 24.11.2021 or any such notification by the
State Government, to make the higher qualification of degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering to be eligible to apply for the
post of MVSI, in the present recruitment-2021, the ratio of
judgment in case of S. Satyapal Reddy (Supra) is not applicable
to the present case.
22. In case of Jyoti K.K. Vs. Kerala Public Service
Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596], which has been discussed
in several subsequent judgments, the appellants were holders of
B.Tech degree in electrical engineering or bachelor's degree in
electrical engineering were not considered by the Commission to
be eligible for the post of Sub-engineer (electrical) hence they
approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court, while placing
reliance upon the Rule 10(a) (ii) of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Service Rules 1956 held as under:
"9. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when
a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the
same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different
qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also
justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly
indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that
part of the rule to the effect that such of those higher
qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient
for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in
the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications
prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary
to seek far. Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant
engineer, degree in electrical engineering of Kerala University
or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent
thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct
recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be
obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification
is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for
the lower post, namely, the post of sub-engineer. In that view
of the matter the qualification of degree in electrical
engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower
[2023/RJJP/000733] (36 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the
post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. In the
event the government is of the view that only diploma
holders should have applied to post of sub-engineers but not
all those who possess higher qualifications, either this rule
should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess
higher qualifications or the position should have been made
clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for such
post."
(Emphasis Supplied)
In the judgment delivered in case of Jyoti K.K. (Supra),
Rule 10(a) (ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules
1956, specifically provides that the clause of higher qualification
would pre-suppose the clause of lower qualification prescribed for
the post. Whereas in the case at hand, admittedly there is no such
rule available, to treat/presume that the degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering presupposes the acquisition of
lower qualification of diploma in automobile/mechanical
engineering, though the same are in similar disciplines. Rather the
ratio decidendi of Jyoti K.K. (Supra) is that when a qualification
has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot be in
any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be
adopted. The higher qualification must clearly indicate or pre-
supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for
that post in order to attract that part of the rule to the effect that
such of those higher qualifications which pre-suppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall
also be sufficient for the post.
23. Learned counsel for respondents have placed reliance upon
the judgment in case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs. State of
Jammu and Kashmir [(2015) 17 SCC 709], in that case, the
prescribed qualification for the post of J& K Forest Range Officers
[2023/RJJP/000733] (37 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Grade-I was BSc (Forestry) or its equivalent from any university
recognized by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research and
since appellants in the said case, had qualification of BSc with
Forestry as one of the major subjects and in masters in forestry
i.e. MSC (Forestry) then in that situation, the candidate
possessing the higher qualification was held to possess the
required qualification to apply for the post. More over, Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that if there was any ambiguity or vagueness
noticed in the prescribed qualification in the advertisement, then it
should have been clarified by the authority concerned in the
advertisement itself.
This Court is of opinion that the ratio of law as expounded by
the Apex Court in case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry (Supra) has no
applicability in the present case as in the present case, the degree
of B.Tech engineering has been sought to presupposes the
qualification of diploma in engineering, being in similar discipline
of automobile and mechanical engineering, but it is well settled in
India that the diploma in engineering and B.Tech in engineering
are two different courses. In case of diploma holders, short term
course of three years, focus & stress is on extensive practical
knowledge, whereas in case of degree holders, major emphasis is
on academics, thus both cater to different situations.
24. Learned counsel for the RSSB has also placed reliance on the
judgment of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in case of S. Gurmeet
Singh Vs. State & Ors. [(2008) 1 JKJ 68] delivered on 13th
December 2007, where the question came up for consideration
before the High Court was, as to whether degree in automobile
[2023/RJJP/000733] (38 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
engineering/ mechanical engineering, possessed by petitioners
makes them eligible to compete for the post of Motor Vehicle
Inspectors, advertisement in regard whereto prescribes only
diploma in automobile engineering/mechanical engineering as
minimum qualification. The similar argument as has been argued
before this Court was also made before the High Court of Jammu
& Kashmir that All India Council for Technical Education has issued
various notifications, which would demonstrate that the Council
has been treating degree in engineering to be a higher
qualification of diploma in engineering and it was precisely for this
reason that it had treated those candidates possessing diploma in
engineering, to be eligible to have lateral entry in the second year
of the degree course of engineering. Placing reliance on
notifications issued by the All India Council for Technical Education
as also on various statutory rules framed by the State
Government for its various services, the High Court concluded that
the degree in engineering is a higher qualification to that of
diploma in engineering. Thereafter, on the peculiar facts of that
case, where in the advertisement, qualification of diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering was prescribed as minimum
qualification and by way of corrigendum notification, 10 additional
points were provided to candidates, possessing degree (B.E.) in
addition, to having successfully undergone diploma in engineering
course. The Court declared the action of the Board in treating the
degree holders as ineligible to compete for the post of Motor
Vehicle Inspectors, to be bad in law.
[2023/RJJP/000733] (39 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
As far as present case is concerned, to this extent there is no
quarrel that the degree in automobile/mechanical engineering is
higher qualification to that of diploma, but there is no material on
record to hold that the degree in automobile/mechanical
engineering pre-supposes acquisition of the qualification of
diploma of same discipline nor treat the degree as equivalent
qualification to diploma for the purpose of eligibility for the post of
MVSI in the present recruitment process. If the logic of lateral
entry is made basis, then it is also the provision that who have
completed their B.SC can obtain lateral entry to degree course,
but that would not mean that every degree holder, pre-supposes
to the B.SC course. If the State Government was intended to allow
degree holders in automobile/mechanical engineering to be
eligible and compete for the post of MVSI in the present
recruitment-2021, in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021 itself
such eligibility would have been indicated. Mere issuance of the
Office order dated 15.12.2021 by the RSSB may not be put at the
same pedestal.
25. Learned counsels for respondents, have placed reliance on
next judgment in case of Puneet Sharma VS. Himachal
Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. [(2021) SCC OnLine SC
291]. In that case, the Apex Court adverted over two questions,
whether a degree in electrical engineering/electrical and
electronics engineering is technically higher qualification than a
diploma in that discipline? And, whether degree holders are
eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical)
under the relevant recruitment rules? The Apex Court has noted
[2023/RJJP/000733] (40 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
that the relevant rules stipulating essential qualifications for the
post of JE prescribes essential qualification to be minimum
matriculates with diploma in electrical/electronics and
communication/Computer Science from the recognized
institution/Board/University/ duly recognized by the Central or
State Government and further, method of recruitment is 80% by
Direct Recruitment and 20% by promotion. The Apex Court has
also noted that AICTE on 12.01.2007 has issued notification that
student who acquires a diploma in engineering through a
minimum of 3 years of institutional study (after 10+2 Secondary
Examination), diploma holders were to be academically equivalent
to students, who possessed the first year of 4 year engineering
degree programme. It was noted that the recruitment and
promotion regulations applicable to HPSEB, were amended on
24.05.2010 and they provided that essential qualification for
promotion from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the post
of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The Apex court clearly opined
that the Court is conscious that the issue in question is whether
the minimum qualifications of a diploma in electrical or electronic
engineering or other prescribed qualifications included a degree in
that discipline, however, the rules have to be considered as a
whole. So view the two sub-quotas are:
(1). 5% enabling those diploma holders who acquire
degree qualifications during service as Junior Engineers;
and
(2). 5% enabling among those who hold degrees before
joining as Junior Engineers.
Further, the Apex Court opined that by the amendment dated
03.06.2020, the HPSEB has clarified beyond doubt that even for
[2023/RJJP/000733] (41 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
the post of Junior Engineer, those individuals holding higher
qualifications are eligible to compete. The Apex Court noticed that
though the amending Rules brought into force prospectively,
nevertheless, being clarificatory, they apply to the recruitment
that is the subject matter of present controversy. After having
adverted to the previous judgments and distinguishing such
judgments, on facts, finally the Apex Court held as under:
"38. The considerations which weighed with this court in the
previous decisions i.e. P.M. Latha Vs. State of Kerala
[(2003) 3 SCC 541], Yogesh Kumar vs. Government of Ntc
Delhi, State of Punjab Vs.Anita [(2015) 2 SCC 170] were quite
different from the facts of this case. This court's conclusions
that the prescription of a specific qualification, excluding what is
generally regarded as a higher qualification can apply to certain
categories of posts. Thus, in Latha and Yogesh Kumar as well as
Anita (supra) those possessing degrees or post-graduation or
B.Ed. degrees, were not considered eligible for the post of
primary or junior teacher. In a similar manner, for "Technician-
III" or lower post, the equivalent qualification for the post of
Junior Engineer i.e. diploma holders were deemed to have been
excluded, in Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra). This court is
cognizant of the fact that in Anita as well as Zahoor (supra) the
stipulation in Jyoti (supra) which enabled consideration of
candidates with higher qualifications was deemed to be a
distinguishing ground. No such stipulation exists in the HPSEB
Rules. Yet, of material significance is the fact that the higher
post of Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer)
has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional quota. Amongst these
individuals, those who held degrees before appointment as a
Junior Engineers are entitled for consideration in a separate and
distinct sub-quota, provided they function as a Junior Engineer
continuously for a prescribed period. This salient aspect cannot
be overlooked; it only shows the intent of the rule makers not
to exclude degree holders from consideration for the lower post
of Junior Engineers.
39. As noticed previously, in addition to the above
considerations, an amendment to the rules was made on
03.06.2020 declaring that those with higher qualifications are
also entitled to apply or be considered for appointment. This
amendment was brought in to clear all doubts and
controversies and, in that sense, the amending provisions
should be deemed to have been inserted from inception."
Thus it clearly appears that in facts of that case, the Apex
Court permitted degree holders to be eligible for the post of Junior
Engineers (Electrical) along with diploma holders. In the present
[2023/RJJP/000733] (42 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
case, on facts as as well as from perusal of the Statutory Rules,
the intention of the State Government to include degree holders
along with diploma holders in automobile/mechanical engineering
to be eligible for the post of MVSI in present recruitment-2021
nowhere reflects. The State Government neither expressed its
intention in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021 nor there is any
basis or rule or rational logic to treat the degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering as equivalent qualification to
the diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering merely on
account of being higher educational qualification. No different
quotas on promotional post have been pointed out. Therefore, the
ratio decidendi delivered in case of Puneet Sharma (Supra) is
not applicable to facts of the present case.
26. Per Contra, judgments referred and relied upon by learned
counsels for petitioners are as follows:
27. Learned counsel for petitioners have heavily placed reliance
upon the judgment of full bench of Allahabad High Court delivered
in case of Deepak Singh Vs. State of U.P. [(2020) 1 ALJ 596]
and placing reliance on the ratio decidendi of Depaak Singh, on
another judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Abhishek
Sharma Vs. State of UP [(2022) 3 ALL WC 3030].
In case of Deepak Singh (Supra), following four questions
were referred to the larger Bench:
"A. Whether a Degree in the field in question is entitled to
be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to a
Diploma in that field?
B. Whether the decisions in Alok Kumar Mishra and
Kartikey lay down the correct position in law when they
hold that a Degree holder is excluded from the zone of
consideration for appointment as a Junior Engineer?
[2023/RJJP/000733] (43 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
C. Whether a degree holder can be held to be ineligible to
participate in a selection process for Junior Engineer in
light of the relevant statutory rules?
D. Whether the exclusion of degree holders from the zone
of consideration would meet the tests as propounded by
the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Deep
Chandra Tewari?"
The full Bench noted that advertisement for Junior Engineer
Sanganak and Foreman (General Recruitment) Competitive
Examination-2018 issued by the UP Subordinate Services
Selection Commission, itself specifically provided eligibility to
candidates having diploma in Civil/Electrical/Mechanical
Engineering alone. Petitioners were possessing graduate degree in
Civil/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering and were aggrieved due to
their exclusion for being consideration on the post under the
advertisement. From the side of petitioners, it was sought to
canvass that the qualification of diploma in engineering is specified
as "minimum qualification" and a higher qualification cannot be
barred for them being considered for appointment. Per contra
from the side of respondents, learned Additional Advocate General
argued that graduates in engineering cannot be termed as a
qualification in progression of diploma in engineering. As the
curriculum for diploma in engineering is very different in
relationship to the curriculum for graduation in engineering. The
full Bench, having adverted to judgment in case of State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Deep Chand Tiwari [2013 (15) SCC 557]
observed that the ratio decidendi of that judgment strengthens
the proposition that where the qualification is specified, there
should be no deviation from the said specified requirement. The
Apex Court in case of Deep Chand Tiwari (Supra) itself clarified
[2023/RJJP/000733] (44 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
that as a normal rule, the candidate with higher qualification is
deemed to fulfill the lower qualification, prescribed for a post, but
the higher qualification has to be in the same channel. The full
Bench observed and held that the diploma in engineering and
graduate in engineering cannot be held to be in the same channel
and also that graduate in engineering cannot be deemed to be
fulfilled the qualification which are prescribed for grant of diploma.
Thus, the exclusion of degree holders from the zone of
consideration was found to meet the test as laid down by the
Supreme Court in case of Deep Chand Tiwari (Supra) and
accordingly, the question No. D was answered.
In respect of question No. C, the full Bench has held that
diploma in engineering is not the same as bachelor in engineering,
however, it was clarified that if a candidate possesses both
qualifications it means suppose a candidate after acquiring
diploma in engineering, also possess graduation in engineering,
obviously he would be ineligible in view of the fact that he has
acquired diploma in engineering which is required for the post and
in that situation, he cannot be denied to participate, only because
he had additional qualification of degree, with diploma. However,
the degree holders, have not undertaken the diploma in
engineering were held ineligible to participate in the selection
process for Junior Engineer in the light of relevant statutory Rules
and accordingly question No. C was answered.
In respect of questions No. A & B, the full Bench after
considering the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court,
observed that there is no binding judgment of the Apex Court
[2023/RJJP/000733] (45 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
laying down the law that degree in engineering is in the same line
of progression as diploma in engineering. For this principle, the
ratio decidendi of the judgment in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather
Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad [(2019) 2 SCC 404] was taken
note of and the judgment in case of Jyoti K.K. (Supra), was
observed to be distinguished on the ground that the analogy of
the judgment in case of Jyoti K.K. (Supra) hinged upon the
interpretation of Rule 10(a) (ii) of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Service Rules, 1956. The judgment in case of P.M.
Latha Vs. State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 541] was also
discussed and observed that the ratio decidendi of the said
judgment, in fact reinforces the finding that graduates in
engineering are not entitled to be considered as it cannot be
implied that a graduate in engineering has the qualification of a
diploma in engineering. The full Bench has held that the State
Government, while prescribing the essential qualifications or
desirable qualifications are best suited to decide requirements for
selecting a candidate for nature of work required by the State
Government and Courts are precluded from laying down
conditions of eligibility. If the language in the rules is clear, judicial
review cannot be used to decide what is best suited for the
employer. The Judgment of full Bench in case of Deepak Singh
(Supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) No.27250/2019.
28. This Court has noticed that in case of S. Satyapal Reddy
(Supra), the Apex Court held that the degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering is higher qualification than the
[2023/RJJP/000733] (46 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
diploma in the same discipline and the State Government
possesses powers to prescribe the higher qualification as well,
therefore, in that case the stand of the State Government to
prescribe the higher qualification of graduate in engineering to be
eligible to apply for the post of MVSI, has sustained by the
Supreme Court. In the full Bench judgment in case of Deepak
Singh (Supra), the full Bench has opined that since there is no
judgment of the Apex Court or any rule to hold that the degree in
engineering, pre-supposes the qualification of diploma in
engineering and therefore, in that sense, a degree in engineering
cannot be viewed as a higher qualification compared to diploma in
engineering of that field. Therefore, this Court does not find any
quarrel between the two judgments. The similar view was adopted
and expressed by the Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in
case of Abhishek Sharma (Supra) and taking note of the fact
that the State Government has not prescribed the qualification of
degree in mechanical engineering/mechanical automobile
engineering for the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) under
the Rules of 1980 and rules prescribed the essential qualification
to be diploma in automobile engineering or diploma in mechanical
engineering, then in that situation, degree holders were excluded
from consideration for the post of Regional Inspector (Technical).
This Court is in full concurrence of the same view in the present
case.
29. This Court further finds force in the submission of learned
counsel for petitioners that the qualification of degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering cannot be allowed to be added
[2023/RJJP/000733] (47 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
as eligibility qualification on the basis of office order dated
15.12.2021 issued by the RSSB and this action of the RSSB is
beyond the qualification prescribed under the Statutory Rules of
1963, framed by the State Government. Learned counsel for
petitioners are correct in contending that powers and jurisdiction
lie with the State Government i.e. the Rule Making and Appointing
Authority, to allow degree holders in automobile/mechanical
engineering to be eligible for the post of MVSI, but in facts of the
present case, the State Government has not exercised such
powers and neither any such qualification has been added in Rule
11, Schedule-I of the Rules of 1963, nor the State Government
prescribed such qualification in the advertisement dated
24.11.2021.
30. This Court finds support to accept such contentions, on the
basis of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Dr. Krushna
Chandra Sahu Vs. State of Orissa [(1995) 6 SCC 1], wherein
it has been held that the suitability criteria is to be laid down by
the rule making authority and that the selection criteria cannot be
laid down by the Selection Board/Selection Committee, unless
specifically authorized. For ready reference Paras No.31, 34, 35 &
36 are being extracted as under:
"31. Now, power to make rules regulating the conditions of
service of persons appointed on Govt. Posts is available to the
Governor of the State under the Proviso to Article 309and it was
in exercise of this power that the present rules were made. If
the statutory Rules, in a given case, have not been made,
either by the Parliament or the State Legislature, or, for that
matter, by the Governor of the State, it would be open to the
appropriate Government (the Central Government under Article
73 and the State Government under Article 162) to issue
executive instructions. However, if the Rules have been made
but they are silent on any subject or point in issue, the
omission can be supplied and the rules can be supplemented by
executive instructions.
[2023/RJJP/000733] (48 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
34. The Selection Committee does not even have the inherent
jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such
power be assumed by necessary implication. In P.K.
Ramachandra lyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141], it was
observed:
By necessary inference, there was no such power in the
ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power is
claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by
necessary implication for the obvious reasons that such
deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and
irreversible harm.
35. Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985
2 SCR 367], it was observed that the Selection Committee does
not possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in
addition to what is prescribed under the Rules. Both these
decisions were followed in Dugacharan Misra v. State of Orissa
[(1987) 4 SCC 646] and the limitations of the Selection
Committee were pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to
prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate had to secure
at the viva voce.
36. It may be pointed out that rule making function under Article
309 is legislative and not executive as was laid down by this
Court in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana [AIR (1981) SC 561].
For this reason also, the Selection Committee or the Selection
Board cannot be held to have jurisdiction to lay down any
standard or basis for selection as it would amount to legislating
a rule of selection.
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the State
Government has not prescribed the qualification of degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering being higher educational
qualification as eligible education treating the same as equivalent
qualification to the diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering,
in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021 issued to initiate the
present process of direct recruitment-2021 to fill vacant posts of
MVSI. It is also true and cannot be disputed that the qualification
of degree in automobile/mechanical engineering despite being
higher qualification to that of diploma, is not prescribed under
Rule 11, Schedule-I of the Rules of 1963 for the post of MVSI.
However, the State Government has supported the office order
[2023/RJJP/000733] (49 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
dated 15.12.2021 issued by the RSSB and has taken a stand in
the reply to contest writ petitions that in the previous recruitment
process of MVSI i.e. Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector Recruitment-
2013, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission seeks guidance
from the Department for higher qualification and it was informed
by the Department on 04.09.2015 that the candidates having
higher qualification than 3 years' diploma for the above post may
be considered eligible to apply. The RSSB has also trying to justify
the issuance of office order dated 15.12.2021 contending that this
office order is merely a clarification, and previously in the past
recruitment, degree holders were allowed to participate and also
got selected.
32. In this respect, learned counsel for petitioners have
strenuously urged that there cannot be any estoppel or waiver
against the law. When the action of the RSSB, allowing degree
holder in automobile/mechanical engineering to participate in the
present recruitment process of MVSI is not supported by the
statutory Rules of 1963, the same cannot be held justified by
applying the principle of estoppel and waiver. To strengthen the
legal submissions, learned counsel for petitioners have placed
reliance on a judgment of Apex Court in case of Krishana Rai Vs.
Banaras Hindu University [(2022) 8 SCC 713]. In this case,
the Apex Court considered the issue whether principle of estoppel
and acquiescence will prevail over the statutory service rule
prescribing procedure for promotion of Class IV employees to
Class III working in the Banaras Hindu University. While replying
the said issue, after adhering to the previous several judgments of
[2023/RJJP/000733] (50 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Supreme Court and more particularly placing reliance on the
judgment in case of Tata Chemicals Ltd Vs Commr. Of
Customs [(2015) 11 SCC 628], it was held that there can be no
estoppel against the law. If the law requires something to be done
in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if
it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in
the eye of law.
33. Therefore, this Court fully agrees with contentions of learned
counsel for petitioners and is of the considered opinion that in
absence of any qualification of degree in automobile/mechanical
engineering to be eligible for the post of MVSI either in the
Statutory Rules of 1963 or in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021
or any notification by the State Government to this effect, such
qualification cannot be additionally prescribed by the RSSB by
issuing office order dated 15.12.2021 in the guise of clarification.
34. The next judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on which
learned counsel for petitioners have placed their reliance, is
delivered in case of Prakash Chand Meena Vs State of
Rajasthan [(2015) 8 SCC 484]. In that case, the RPSC issued
advertisement on 03.09.2008 inviting applications for recruitment
to the post of PTI Gr.II and PTI Gr.III. A combined competitive
examination for both posts was conducted on 04.10.2009.
Thereafter, a news item published in newspaper on 18.12.2009
that the State Government had directed the Commission, to treat
candidates, who possess DPEd and/Or BPEd also eligible for the
post of PTI Gr. III, on the premise that these qualifications should
be treated as higher than or equal to CPEd. Therefore, the
[2023/RJJP/000733] (51 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
applicants for the post of PTI Gr. III having qualification of CPEd
were aggrieved with the clarification issued by the State
Government and hence, they preferred writ petitions. Learned
single Judge allowed writ petitions, but the judgment was set
aside by the Division Bench, therefore, the matter came up before
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of
Division Bench and restored the judgment of learned Single Judge
and held that "in order to consider view, the issue noticed at the
outset must be decided on the basis of settled law noticed by the
learned Single Judge that recruitment process must be completed
as per terms and conditions in the advertisement and as per rules
existing when the recruitment process begun." It was held that in
the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent qualification
must be recognized as such in the recruitment rules or
Government order existing that or before the initiation of
recruitment process. Since in that case, the process initiated
through advertisement dated 03.09.2008 inviting applications did
not indicate that the equivalent or higher qualification holders
were eligible to apply nor the equivalent qualifications were
reflected in the recruitment rules or Government orders of the
relevant time, therefore, candidates possessing qualification of
BPEd and DPEd were not held eligible to participate in the
recruitment process.
(Emphasis Supplied)
35. Applying the ratio decidendi of the judgment in case of
Prakash Chand Meena (Supra) to facts of the present case, the
present recruitment process-2021 for the post of MVSI has begun
[2023/RJJP/000733] (52 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
with issuance of advertisement dated 24.11.2021 and neither any
advertisement nor in the recruitment Rules of 1963, the higher
qualification of degree in automobile/mechanical engineering has
been prescribed as eligible or equivalent qualification for the post
and eligible prescribed qualification is diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering. The concept of equivalency,
sought to be argued by learned counsel for respondents that
equivalent qualification does not mean exact qualification, may not
be accepted in the given facts of present writ petitions as the
State Government should have indicated in the recruitment rules
of the advertisement dated 24.11.2021 that the higher
qualification of degree in automobile/mechanical engineering is
treated as equivalent to the qualification of diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering for the purpose of eligible to
the post of MVSI. Therefore, allowing degree holders to apply for
the post of MVSI, in the guise of issuance of a clarificatory office
order dated 15.12.2021 and in the reply of writ petitions, to
contend that the qualification of degree at least be treated as
equivalent to diploma, being in the same discipline, is not liable to
be countenanced and such stand of respondents is against the
settled principles of law.
36. In case of Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission [(2011) 9 SCC 438], the question came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court as to whether
qualifications prescribed in Rajasthan Transport Subordinate
Service Rules 1963 for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector are
mandatory and whether petitioners, who were appointed as MVSI
[2023/RJJP/000733] (53 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court are entitled to continue in service despite reversal
of the order of learned single Judge by the Division Bench. The
Apex Court, after pondering over the qualifications for direct
recruitment for the post of MVSI, as prescribed under Rule 11
Schedule-I of the Rules of 1963 held as under-
"14. The use of word "shall" in Rule 11 makes it clear that the
qualifications specified in the Schedule are mandatory and a
candidate aspiring for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-
Inspector by direct recruitment must possess those
qualifications and must have working knowledge of Hindi
written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani
culture. A conjoint reading of Rule 11, the relevant entries of
the Schedule and paragraph 13 of the advertisement shows
that a person who does not possess the prescribed
educational and technical qualifications, working experience
and a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle,
heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles cannot
compete for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector."
Although on facts in that case, petitioners were lacking the
prescribed qualification i.e. driving licence authorizing them to
drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger
vehicles, however they were provisionally allowed to participate in
the selection process by the Commission and even were given
appointment under the orders of the learned Single Judge, but the
order of learned single judge was reversed by the Division Bench,
then the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of Division Bench
and in exercise of powers under Article 142, as also as per the
observations of Division Bench, petitioners were allowed to
continue in service, until the completion of process of selection for
fresh recruitment of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector.
37. Learned counsel for petitioners have also referred and relied
upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench in case of Dolly Sharma
[2023/RJJP/000733] (54 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Vs. State of Rajasthan in SB Civil Writ Petition
No.5283/2019, where the Court was confronted with the
question as to whether, petitioners obtained degree in MA
(English) are eligible for the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level II)
(English) for which the eligibility under Rule 266(3)of the Rules,
1996 was graduation with subject English as an optional subject.
The Court held that though the petitioners have passed M.A. in
English and claim that they possess higher qualification hence be
declared eligible, but the Court observed that since petitioners
have studied subject English as compulsory language and not as
optional subject in graduation, therefore, they do not fulfill the
required and statutory academic qualification under Rule 266(3) of
the Rules of 1996 and consequently, petitioners were not declared
eligible for the post of Teacher Gr. III Level II. The Coordinate
Bench, placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case
of Zahoor Ahmad (Supra), wherein the qualification prescribed
was matriculation with ITI in Electrical trade and the appellants
were not possessing ITI certificate who were diploma holders in
electrical engineering/electronics & communication, therefore, the
Hon'ble Apex Court while distinguishing the judgment in case of
Jyoti K.K (Supra), inter alia observed as under:
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation
which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. Vs.
Kerala Public Service Commission[(2010) 15 SCC 596] in the
subsequent decision in State of Punjab Vs. Anita[(2015) 2
SCC 170]. The decision in Jyoti KK 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
pre-supposes 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.
[2023/RJJP/000733] (55 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
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 KK
turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of
a higher qualification could pre- suppose 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 the conclusion that the appellants did
not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the
decision of the Division Bench.
(Emphasis Supplied)
Thus, judgments in cases of Alka Ojha (Supra) & Dolly
Sharma (Supra) extend support to the case of petitioners.
38. Having considered and discussed judgments of Honb'ble
Apex Court as also of various High Courts, the issue No.(I) stands
decided in favour of petitioners and against respondents and it is
held that candidates possessing degree in automobile/mechanical
engineering cannot be allowed to participate in the present direct
recruitment-2021 for the post of MVSI on the basis of office order
dated 15.12.2021 issued by the RSSB. However, it is made clear
that if candidates possessing degree in automobile/mechanical
engineering, have also undergone to the course of diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering, obviously they would be
eligible and would be considered for recruitment on the post of
MVSI on merits in the present recruitment.
Issue NO.(II):-
39. The scope of Judicial review in respect of matters relating to
equivalence of academic and technical qualification as also in
respect of the issue that higher qualification pre-supposes the
acquisition of lower qualification is no more res integra and it can
[2023/RJJP/000733] (56 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
safely be held that as per principle of stare decisis, it is well
settled that Courts must tread wearily. It is for the employer to
consider as to what type of study and contents of course of
studies would lead to the acquisition of eligible qualification and
such matters must be left to be at the decision of the
educationalists, who are experts in that field and it is not the
function of Court to sit as an expert body over the decision of
experts. In order to fortify such view, reference of judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs.
Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad [(2019) 2 SCC 404], The
Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep
Shriram Warade [(2019) 6 SCC 362] & Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank Vs. Anit Kumar [(2021) 12 SCC 80]
would be apposite.
In case of Zahoor Ahmad (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex court
held as under:
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation
which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the
subsequent decision in State of Punjab Vs.Anita [(2015) 2 SCC
170]. The decision in Jyoti KK 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 pre-
supposes 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 KK turned on a specific statutory rule
under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-
suppose 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 the 10 id at page 177
[2023/RJJP/000733] (57 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
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 KK must be
understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under
which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes
the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be
sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that
the decision in Jyoti KK turned."
In case of The Maharashtra Public Service Commission
(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are
for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe
additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of
preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the
requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs
of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into
the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par
with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside
the domain of judicial review. If the language of the
advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in
judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter
has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate
orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can
the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the
appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer
and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to
the plain language of the same."
In case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (Supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"21.Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is
for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and
[2023/RJJP/000733] (58 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the
Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted
by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for
any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are
prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an
Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may
be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or
advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications.
However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily
or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts....."
40. It would not be out of place to take note of the fact that on
the judgment of Zahoor Ahmad (Supra), learned counsel for
both parties have placed reliance. Learned counsel for petitioners
have placed reliance on the ratio of the said judgment which
stipulates that candidates to be eligible for the post, must confirm
to the eligibility as required under the statutory Rules. Similarly,
the ratio of law as prescribed in this judgment is that it would not
be permissible to the Court to draw an inference that higher
qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another,
albeit lower qualification. It is no part of the role or function of
judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed
qualification. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is also not a
matter which can be determined by the Court in exercise of the
power of judicial review. At the same time, learned counsel for
respondents too have placed reliance on the judgment of Zahoor
Ahmad (Supra) to buttress their contentions that as per the
AICTE circular and NCTE guidelines, there is a provision for lateral
entry to diploma holders directly in the second year of degree
course in the same discipline and further when the RSSB, by
issuing office order dated 15.12.2021, has allowed candidates
possessing higher educational qualification than the diploma in
[2023/RJJP/000733] (59 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
discipline of automobile/mechanical engineering and thereby,
degree holders having higher qualification are eligible. More so,
the Department of Personnel vide its letter dated 30.08.2022 has
concurred to allow degree holders to be eligible and able to apply
for the post of MVSI in the present recruitment as much as the
report of equivalence committee dated 14.10.2022 has affirmed
the opinion of the DOP, therefore, there is no scope of judicial
review for this Court to disallow and declare degree holders in
automobile/mechanical engineering to be ineligible for the post of
MVSI in the present recruitment-2021.
41. This Court is of opinion that the ratio decidendi of judgment
in case of Zahoor Ahmad (Supra), stands in favour of petitioners
in the given facts of the present case. Because the Court has
noticed that in the letter of the DOP dated 30.08.2022 as well as
in the report of equivalence committee dated 14.10.2022, there is
no findings/observations to the effect that the degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering, necessarily pre-supposes the
acquisition of the qualification of diploma in the same discipline.
Further, there is no finding that degree can be and should be
treated as equivalent qualification to the diploma in the discipline
of automobile/mechanical engineering for the purpose of eligibility
and participation for the post of MVSI in the present recruitment-
2021.
42. This Court is conscious about its jurisdiction and scope of
judicial review, however, before placing its decision on the basis of
letter of DOP dated 30.08.2022 and report of equivalence
committee dated 14.10.2022, it is necessary to look into contents
[2023/RJJP/000733] (60 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
of the letter and report of equivalence committee as to whether,
the same have expressed opinions/views on clinching issues.
43. The background of facts under which, letter of DOP dated
30.08.2022 came to be issued is that the candidates, who possess
degree in automobile/mechanical engineering and participated in
the present recruitment process-2021 for the post of MVSI, when
the office order dated 15.12.2021 by the RSSB was impugned,
sought their impleadment in CWP No.382/2022 and their
application was allowed by this Court vide order dated
18.04.2022. Thereafter, their counsel reiterated Rule 36 of the
Rules of 1963 which provides that in case any doubt arises
relating to the application and scope of these rules, it shall be
referred to the government i.e. Department of Personnel whose
decision thereon shall be final. This Court vide order dated
03.08.2022 directed the counsel for the RSSB to refer the matter
to the Department of Personnel, seeking their opinion on the point
as to whether the persons having higher educational qualification
i.e. degree in mechanical engineering are eligible for the post of
MVSI under the Rules of 1963. In pursuance to such directions of
this Court, it appears that the RSSB sought opinion from the
Department of Personnel and in response, the letter dated
30.08.2022 has been issued by the Joint Secretary, DOP,
Government of Rajasthan. Perusal of this letter, which has been
extracted in Para-7 of the judgment, clearly indicates that the
decision at the behest of DOP has been taken vide this letter
dated 30.08.2022 that candidates having higher educational
qualification in the same trade shall be eligible for the post of
[2023/RJJP/000733] (61 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
MVSI. The whole letter indicates the decision only in one line i.e.
"अरः र बोटर िाहन उप षनरारीक्षक पद हद रु स्रबंब्रबंषधर टदर रय षनधार पररर य बोयोगयरा सद उ उचच य बोयोगयराधारारी वयषक्त क बो
भारी पद हद रु र्थ श्रेणत्र राना जायदरा।".
44. This letter dated 30.08.2022 nowhere reflects that the issue
was given a thoughtful consideration by the Government. There is
no reference of any meeting of mind or any material taken into
consideration by the Department of Personnel, before taking such
decision. This letter nowhere whispers that candidates possessing
higher educational qualification in the trade of
automobile/mechanical engineering, are treated as possessing
equivalent qualification to diploma in automobile/mechanical
engineering for the purpose of recruitment on the post of MVSI.
Further, this letter itself reflects that at the behest of Government
of Rajasthan, DOP, the decision has been taken on 30.08.2022
and prior to that, there is no document on record to show such
stand of State Government. There is no reference in this letter
that in the recruitment for the post of MVSI in previous years, the
government has issued any clarification or letter allowing
candidates possessing the higher educational qualification of
degree in automobile/mechanical engineering being eligible to
participate for the recruitment on the post of MVSI, along with
diploma holders in automobile/mechanical engineering. Even if the
letter dated 30.8.2022 is taken in its entirety, as it is, at the most,
the decision of the DOP is indicated in this letter which is post-
dated decision, taken in the midway of selection process. It cannot
be held clearly on the basis of this letter that candidates
possessing higher educational qualification of degree in
[2023/RJJP/000733] (62 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
automobile/mechanical engineering were eligible and entitled to
apply for the post of MVSI at the time of issuance of
advertisement dated 24.11.2021. Needless to reiterate that in the
advertisement dated 24.11.2021, there is no such declaration by
the State Government, Department of Personnel that candidates
having higher educational qualification in the trade of
automobile/mechanical engineering than diploma holders, would
be eligible and entitled to apply and participate in the present
recruitment process for the post of MVSI. The subsequent change
of criteria of eligibility is impermissible in law.
45. Although the letter dated 30.08.2022 has been impugned
and sought to be quashed in CWP No.382/2022 but even if this
letter is not declared to be quashed or set aside, nevertheless, on
the basis of this letter dated 30.08.2022, degree holders in
automobile/mechanical engineering cannot be held eligible and
entitled to participate in the recruitment process for the post of
MVSI initiated with the publication of advertisement dated
24.11.2021. This Court finds support of law and judicial
precedents as discussed in judgments referred in foregoing
paragraphs of this judgment, while considering the Issue No.(I).
The rule of game cannot be changed in the midway of selection
process, once it is started. Thus this Court is of the considered
opinion that the letter dated 30.08.2022 issued by the
Department of Personal, Government of Rajasthan, does not
support the case of degree holders to be eligible and entitled to
participate for the post of MVSI, as far as the present recruitment
process-2021 is concerned. The above decision of DOP taken in
[2023/RJJP/000733] (63 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
the midway after initiating of the recruitment process, cannot be
made applicable to the present process of recruitment of MVSI.
46. Coming to the report of Equivalence Committee dated
14.10.20122, it has already been noticed in foregoing paragraphs
of this judgment that when the letter dated 30.08.2022 issued by
the Joint Secretary of DOP was placed on record, counsel for
petitioners raised an objection that there is a circular of DOP dated
18.10.2021 to the effect that in case of any dispute with regard to
educational qualification and equivalence, the Committee will
decide the matter as constituted in pursuant to the circular dated
18.10.2021. Accordingly this Court vide order dated 20.09.2022,
directed the Secretary, DOP to place the matter before the
Equivalence Committee constituted in pursuance to the circular
dated 18.10.2021. The Equivalence Committee was required to
decide the issue that higher educational qualification of degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering is equivalent to qualification of
diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering for the purpose of
treating an eligible qualification for the post of MVSI. Further, it
was also required for the Equivalence Committee to consider the
issue as to whether the higher educational qualification of degree
in automobile/mechanical engineering, pre-supposes the
acquisition of diploma course in automobile/mechanical
engineering.
47. The report of Experts/Equivalence Committee dated
14.10.2022 as placed on record by the counsel for State along
with additional affidavit dated 19.10.2022, has been extracted in
Para-8 of this judgment. In the report, narration of factual Matrix
[2023/RJJP/000733] (64 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
has been incorporated and this is full of contents of general
discussion. It has been observed that notification dated 8th March
2019 of the Central Government prescribes minimum educational
qualification and this notification does not put an embargo on the
powers of State Government to allow the higher educational
qualification to make eligible for the post of MVSI. Further, this
report incorporates an opinion of the committee on the basis of
principles of natural justice and as per practical approach, that it is
neither justified nor rational to hold the higher qualified candidates
as ineligible. This report further incorporates that in the previous
recruitment examination for MVSI, directions that candidates
possessing higher educational qualification than the prescribed
educational qualifications were treated as eligible to apply for the
post of MVSI. With such findings/observations the conclusion of
the Expert Committee has been expressed to the effect that the
opinion of the DOP in the letter dated 30.08.2022 declaring the
higher educational qualification to be eligible for the post of MVSI
is appropriate.
48. From perusal of the report of Equivalence Committee, this
Court finds that the report is silent on the clinching issues. In the
report, there is no opinion that how the degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering pre-supposes the acquisition
of the qualification of diploma in automobiles/mechanical
Engineering, and further the report is silent on the issue of
equivalence to treat the degree to be equal as diploma being in
the same discipline for the purpose of appointment on the post of
MVSI. The report of Expert Committee does not reveal any
[2023/RJJP/000733] (65 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
consideration and comparative study in the syllabus of the degree
course and diploma course in automobile/mechanical engineering.
The report does not reflect application of mind and adherence on
the distinguishing factors in the degree and diploma course. There
is no consideration of the fact that the diploma holders can obtain
lateral entry in the second year of degree course. It is trite that
the degree is higher to that of diploma in automobile/mechanical
engineering, but it cannot be concluded on the basis of this report
of experts that the degree to be always treated necessarily pre-
requisite of the diploma course as much as the degree being
higher qualification be treated as at least equivalent qualification
to the diploma. Thus, the report of experts and Equivalence
Committee does not render any support to the case of
respondents in that respect.
49. In this respect, the reference of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Ajith K. Vs. Aneesh K. [(2019) 17
SCC 147] where upon counsel for petitioners have placed reliance
would be apposite. In this case, persons possessing qualification
of diploma in Health Inspector Course (DHIC) were declared
ineligible for the post of Junior Health Inspector Gr.III in the
municipal common service as in the Rules of 1967, the prescribed
qualification was SSLC and sanitary inspector certificate. Although
on the basis of provision of Rule 10(a)(ii), it was canvassed that
the diploma course should be one which pre-supposes the
completion of the certificate course and the letter of Principal
Secretary as well as report of experts were have available on
record, however, the Supreme Court while affirming the judgment
[2023/RJJP/000733] (66 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
of Division Bench and affirming the correctness of the judgment of
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, observed that there was no
determination of equivalence by any executive order or standing
orders of the State Government. Nor was there any finding that a
DHIC, pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification. The
RPSC has not carried out any exercise as required by provisions of
the Rules.
The ratio decidendi of judgment in case of Ajith K. (Supra)
applies to facts of the present case and despite the opinion of DOP
in letter dated 30.08.2022 and report of Equivalence Committee
dated 14.10.2022, there is no material on record to show that the
degree in automobiles/mechanical engineering pre-supposes the
acquisition of Diploma and be treated as equivalent to be eligible
to apply for the post of MVSI within the prescribed qualifications
under the advertisement dated 24.11.2021 as well as statutory
Rules of 1963, for the post in question.
50. In counter, learned counsel for respondents have placed
reliance on the judgment of Chandrakala Trivedi Vs. State of
Rajasthan [(2012) 3 SCC 129]. In this case, word
"equivalence" was discussed and the Apex Court observed that the
word equivalence must be given reasonable meaning and there
are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower
the stated requirement. It was observed that there has to be
some difference between what is "equivalence" and what is
"exact". On facts of that case, the requisite educational
qualifications for appointment of Teacher Level II, Upper Primary
Middle School are Senior Secondary School Certificate or
[2023/RJJP/000733] (67 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
Intermediate or its equivalence and diploma or BEIEd or BEd or
equivalence. The appellant had completed her graduation, got BEd
degree also acquired M.A. degree. Therefore, on such facts, the
Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, held that the appellant should be considered
reasonably and the provisional appointment which had already
been given to appellant should not be cancelled.
In the present case, there is no material on record to
show/prove that the degree course in automobile/mechanical
engineering subsumes diploma course or both are equivalent. It is
trite that the there cannot be any pre-suppossing of these issues
by the Court in exercise of judicial powers, therefore, this
judgment does not support respondents on facts of the present
case.
51. Learned counsel for respondents have also placed reliance on
the recent judgment delivered in case of Anand Yadav Vs. State
of UP [(2020) SCC Online SC 823] wherein, the degree of MEd
was treated as equivalent to the degree of MA (Technical) for the
post of Assistant Professor in Education. In that case, equivalence
was considered between two degree courses, whereas in facts of
the present case, equivalence has been sought to be pressed for
degree course with the diploma course in automobile/mechanical
engineering. The degree course, though is a higher education than
diploma, as declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.
Satyapal Reddy (Supra), but has not been treated as equivalent
by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Deepak
Singh (Supra) and further in case of Abhishek Sharma (Supra).
[2023/RJJP/000733] (68 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
52. Having considered the contents of the letter of DOP dated
30.08.2022 and report of Equivalence Committee dated
14.10.2022 as also the scope of judicial review, with the
assistance of learned counsel for both parties in the light of
judgments referred hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that
the action of the RSSB and the State, to allow candidates
possessing degree in automobile/mechanical engineering to
participate in the present recruitment-2021 for the post of MVSI is
liable to be declared arbitrary, illegal, incongruous to the statutory
Rules of 1963 as well as violative to Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India. The decision of DOP in the letter dated
30.08.2022 and the report of Equivalence Committee dated
14.10.2022 concurring with the decision of DOP, are not sufficient
to treat degree holders in automobile/mechanical engineering, to
be pre-suppossing the acquisition of the course of diploma and to
treat the degree as equivalent to diploma, so as to allow degree
holders to compete along with diploma holders in the present
recruitment-2021. Accordingly, Issue No.(II) stands decided in
favour of petitioners and against respondents.
53. For discussions and reasons made hereinabove, this Court
reaches to the conclusion that when the degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering is not the prescribed
qualification in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021, so also in the
Statutory Rules of 1963, to be eligible to apply for the post of
MVSI in the present recruitment-2021, candidates possessing
degree in automobile/mechanical engineering cannot be allowed
to apply and participate in the present recruitment process for the
[2023/RJJP/000733] (69 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
post of MVSI, by way of issuance of office order dated 15.12.2021
by the RSSB. Further, the State of Rajasthan, being the appointing
and rule making authority, has neither prescribed the degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering as eligibility qualification for
the post of MVSI in the present recruitment process-2021 and
subsequent letter of DOP dated 30.08.2022 as well as report of
Equivalence Committee dated 14.10.2022, cannot be taken as
substitute of the decision of the State Government, which was
never taken in beginning of the present selection process. This
Court finds that in the letter of DOP dated 30.08.2022 and report
of Equivalence Committee dated 14.10.2022, experts and
authorities have not considered the issue of equivalence between
degree and diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering nor
have considered and opined that degree being higher qualification,
pre-supposes the acquisition of diploma course, therefore, the
stand of respondents to support the office order dated 15.12.2021
and to allow degree holders in automobile/mechanical engineering
to apply and participate in the present recruitment 2021 for the
post of MVSI cannot be countenanced, by this Court.
In judgment of S. Satyapal Reddy (Supra), degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering was held to be higher
qualification than diploma, but since the Government of Andhra
Pradesh itself had prescribed qualification of degree in
automobile/mechanical engineering as competent and eligibility to
apply for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, therefore,
the Apex Court allowed degree holders holding that it is within the
power and jurisdiction of the State Government to prescribe any
[2023/RJJP/000733] (70 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
additional or higher qualification than the qualification prescribed
by the Central Government under Section 213(4) of the Act of
1988. In the present case, the State Government has not
prescribed qualification of degree in automobile/mechanical
engineering to be eligible for the post in question in the present
recruitment. There is no rule in the Rules of 1963, or any other
judicial pronouncements to declare that the degree pre-supposes
the acquisition of qualification of diploma being higher
qualification. Mere by issuance of office order dated 15.12.2021 by
the RSSB, such eligibility cannot be permitted to prescribe any
qualification.
In judgment delivered in case of Zahoor Ahmad (Supra) on
which learned counsel for both parties have placed reliance, the
Apex Court has clearly laid down that in absence of any Rule, it
would not be permissible for the Court to draw an inference that a
higher qualification, necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of
any other, albeit lower qualification. It is no part of the role or
function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit or prescribed
qualification. Similarly, the equivalence of a qualification is not a
matter which can be determined by the Court in exercise of power
of judicial review. It has also been observed that CWP
No.382/2022, had been filed even prior to issuance of impugned
office order dated 15.12.2021 and thus petitioners in this writ
petition have challenged the action of the RSSB and the State
Government, to allow degree holders treating them eligible and to
compete with the diploma holders in the present recruitment 2021
[2023/RJJP/000733] (71 of 71) [CW-382/2022]
for the post of MVSI prior to their participation in the examination
and recruitment process.
54. As a result, the instant writ petitions are hereby allowed. The
impugned office order dated 15.12.2021 issued by the RSSB is
quashed. Respondent-RSSB is directed to prepare the final result
on merit for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector, pursuant to
advertisement dated 24.11.2021, excluding degree holders in
automobile/mechanical engineering and the appointment be given
by the State as per merit list in accordance with law.
It is made clear that candidate(s) participated in the present
recruitment process, possessing degree in automobile/mechanical
engineering, if has/have already undergone to the diploma course
and had acquired qualification of diploma in
automobile/mechanical engineering, as per the prescribed norms
of qualification in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021, shall be
considered on merits. No costs.
55. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
