dated 08.01.2025, notified by the respondent no. 4/the Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission, Haridwar ("the Commission") of
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an
Draughtsman in six departments, the petitioner applied for the post.
Written examination was conducted on 05.11.2023. Thereafter, in a
on 21.12.2023, the petitioner's name was included in it. But, when
21.12.2023. Hence, he has challenged the selection list.
3. Before we may proceed further, it would be apt to
reproduce the essential qualification of Draughtsman in six
notification. They are as under:-
6. Counter affidavit that has been filed by the Urban
Development Department records that during the continuance of
recruitment process for Draughtsman, the Commission vide letter
dated 05.01.2024 sought clarification of essential qualification from
the Director, Urban Development Directorate, Dehradun on the
following points:-
(i) Whether the trade concerned means Diploma in
Civil Engineering or Diploma/Certificate in
Draftsman?
(ii) Whether for the said post the applicants holding
diploma/certificate in architectural assistant will
also be eligible?
(iii) Will candidates holding diploma/certificate in any
trade other than the above also be eligible?
7. According to the respondent no. 3, those queries were
replied in a meeting held in the Chairmanship of the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development Department on 02.04.2024, in the
presence of the Joint Secretary of Urban Development, Joint Secretary
of Personnel and the Additional Director of the Urban Development. In
the meeting, a decision has been taken to inform the respondent
Commission that for the post of Draughtsman, Diploma/ITI certificate
in concerned trade means "Diploma in Civil Engineering or
Diploma/Certificate in Draughtsman (Manchitrakar) or
Diploma/Certificate in Architectural Assistant". The communication
made by the Commission on 05.01.2024 to all these three
departments, namely, Urban Development Department, Minor
Irrigation Department and Public Works Department have been
enclosed along with the counter affidavit that has been filed by the
Commission. The Commission has also enclosed the response that has
been received from all these three departments.
8. During the hearing of the petition, on 18.02.2025, after
hearing the parties, the Court required the Commission to explain as
to how it wrote a letter to the Government seeking clarification on the
eligibility and prepare a fresh merit list by changing the cut-off marks
by ousting candidates enbloc having certificate/diploma in
Draughtsman once the selection is over? Pursuant to it, an affidavit
was filed by the Commission, in para 6 of it, it reads as follows:-
"...................the Urban Development Department specifies
Diploma / ITI Certificate in the relevant trade as a mandatory
qualification. Similarly, the Minor Irrigation Department also
requires a qualification equivalent to the mandatory diploma.
The Public Works Department mentions an equivalent
diploma as the required qualification. During document
verification, it was observed that most of the candidates who
had cleared the cut-off in the document verification list held
Diplomas in Civil Engineering have marked their preferences
in all the departments. It was hence, to determine equivalent
educational qualifications for the Urban Development
Department, Minor Irrigation Department and Public Works
Department, a letter was sent to these departments on
January 5, 2024, by the Commission. The letter inquired
whether candidates holding a Diploma in Civil Engineering,
Draughtsmanship (Cartography), or Architectural
Assistantship (similar to other departments) could be
considered eligible for these positions."
9. Further, in this affidavit, in para 11, the Commission
writes that, "as the number of candidates in the documents
verification list is higher than the number of vacancies, the cut
off of final selection result is always different from the cut-off
pertaining to documents verification list...................................
................................................................Thus, it is clear from the
above that before issuing the final selection result, the
Commission communicated with the government/department
regarding all equivalent qualifications, and based on the
information provided by the government/department the
selection process was conducted in accordance with the rules."
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the file.
11. In public examination, when recruitment is done under
the service rules, the essential qualification as given in the rules has to
be respected. Neither the recruiting body nor the Court may add or
subtract any qualification that is given in the advertisement in
accordance with the service rules. The concepts of higher education or
equivalent qualification are related issue to it. But, the question is if
only "THE qualification" is prescribed for recruitment on a post, can
equivalent qualification or higher qualification may be considered for
eligibility in such cases?
12. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others v. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404, the recruitment was
done to the post of Technician-III and the qualification was "Matric
with ITI in relevant Trade". Accordingly, it was advertised. The
recruitment was being done by the Jammu & Kashmir State Service
Selection Board ("SSSB"). In view of some non-clarity on the
qualification, on 31.01.2015, the SSSB held a meeting. The agenda
and its resolution are given in paras 6 & 7 of the judgment in the case
of Zahoor Ahmad (supra), as follows:-
"6. On 31-1-2015, the SSSB held its 116th meeting at
which, among the subjects on the agenda, was the
following:
"Agenda No. 11. During the course of
scrutiny of documents in the process of framing the
selection lists for the post of Technician III (Power
Development Department), it has been observed
that the Convener of the Interview Committee (in
some districts) has conducted the interview of
candidates having Diploma in Electrical
Engineering provisionally while as in some other
districts, the candidates having Diploma in
Electronics and Communication Engineering,
Electrical Engineering, BE (Electrical) have been
declared as not eligible for the post in question.
Furthermore, the candidates having ITI trade in
general Electronic Mechanic, Welder (Gas &
Electric), Instrument Mechanic, Welder (Gas & Arc),
Information Technology and Electronic Systems
Maintt. have also been interviewed for the post in
question."
7. The Minutes of the Meeting record that the following
decision was arrived at by the Board:
"After threadbare discussion, it was decided that
only ITI in relevant trade viz. Electrician has to considered
as prescribed in the advertisement notification."
13. The above agenda and resolution makes it clear that
against the educational qualification of ITI in relevant trade, Diploma
in Electrical Engineering, Diploma in Electronics and Communication
Engineering, Electrical Engineering, BE (Electrical) were also
considered in some districts and in some districts, the candidates
having ITI trade in general Electronic Mechanic, Welder (Gas &
Electric), etc. were also interviewed. But, the SSSB resolved that only
ITI in relevant trade, viz., electrician has to be considered. 'Relevant'
was referred to the position to which the recruitment was to be held,
which was electrician. Accordingly, selections were made, which were
challenged. The learned Single Judge made an interference holding
that "a candidate possessing a Diploma-Electrical is entitled to
appointment to the post of Junior Engineer which ranks higher
than the post of Technician III. Hence, in this line of reasoning, if
the appellants were eligible to hold a higher post, their
qualification was adequate for the post of Technician III and a
Diploma in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of
the lower qualification of Matric with ITI". But, in the letters patent
appeals, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was reversed by the
Division Bench holding that the advertisement mandated an ITI in the
relevant trade as a condition of eligibility and the SSSB had not
granted any weightage to a higher qualification.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
Division Bench and observed that, in fact, the SSSB on 31.01.2015
rightly resolved to adhere to the qualification, which was prescribed in
the advertisement. In para 20 and 21 of the judgment in the case of
Zahoor Ahmad (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:-
"20. Under the above provisions as well as in the
advertisement which was issued by the Board, every
candidate must possess the prescribed
academic/professional/technical qualification and must fulfil
all other eligibility conditions. The prescribed qualifications
for the post of Technician III in the Power Development
Department is a Matric with ITI in the relevant trade. The
Board at its 116th meeting took notice of the fact that in
some districts, the interviews had been conducted for
candidates with a Diploma in Electrical Engineering while in
other districts candidates with a diploma had not been
considered to be eligible for the post of Technician III.
Moreover, candidates with an ITI in diverse trades had also
been interviewed for the post. The Board resolved at its
meeting that only an ITI in the relevant trade, namely,
the Electrical trade is the prescribed qualification
specified in the advertisement.
21. The learned Single Judge was persuaded to
accept the submissions of the petitioners who had moved the
writ petition primarily on two grounds. The first was that the
Board had changed the rules in the midst of the selection
process. In holding thus, the learned Single Judge was
clearly in error. The Board did not bring about any change
in the rules or the norms governing the selection
midstream. There was no deviation from prescribed
requirement for the post, of ITI with Matric. In fact the
Board resolved to adhere to the qualification which was
prescribed in the advertisement. An anomalous situation
had arisen as a consequence of which, despite the
prescribed qualifications, interviews of diploma-holders
had been conducted in some districts. This was plainly in
breach of the conditions of the advertisement and was
rectified by the Board. The second ground which weighed
with the learned Single Judge was that the holder of a
diploma is eligible for the higher post of Junior Engineer and
hence a candidate who holds a diploma must be
"presupposed" to hold the lower qualification of an ITI. This
line of reasoning appears to be based on the judgment of a
two-Judge Bench of this Court in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 :
(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] Before adverting to the decision
in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] , it would be
necessary to advert to some of the decisions of this Court on
the subject."
(emphasis supplied)
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad
(supra), in para 26, further observed that "the prescription of
qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy....... "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."
16. And, finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 27, in
the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra) observed as follows:-
"27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post,
the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several
features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes
requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality
of a qualification and the content of the course of studies
which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State
is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its
public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law,
fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The
State as a public employer may well take into account social
perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities
across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters
of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the
decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664]
must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule
under which the holding of a higher qualification which
presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was
considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context
of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 :
(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned."
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at one stage,
submitted that the Commission cannot seek clarification when the
rules do not provide for it. Whereas, on behalf of the Commission it is
argued that for three departments, namely, Urban Development
Department, Minor Irrigation Department and Public Work
departments, there were less clarity with regard to relevant trade and
equivalence; therefore the Commission vide its letter dated 05.01.2024
sought clarification from these Departments.
18. On the question of eligibility and educational
qualification, on 01.09.2025, this Court has observed that insofar as
the Urban Development Department is concerned, the respondent
Commission had no occasion to seek any clarification. In para 15 and
16 of this Court's order dated 01.09.2025, this Court observed as
follows:-
"15. In the instant case, in so far as Urban Development
Department is concerned, the education qualification is Intermediate
(10+2) from a Board/Institution recognized by the Central or State
Government and Diploma/ITI Certificate in the concerned Trade
from an Institution recognized by the Central or State Government.
This qualification is "THE" qualification for the post. No equivalent
qualification has been given for this post.
16. It is being argued on behalf of the Commission that
one of the essential qualifications for appointment of Draughtsman
in the Urban Development Department is Diploma/ITI Certificate in
the concerned Trade. Pressing upon the word 'concerned' it is argued
that it was sought to be clarified by the Government that what does
this word 'concerned' mean. This argument has less merits for
acceptance. The essential qualification does not speak of any
equivalence. The word 'concerned' is only related to the post on
which recruitment is to be made and that post is of Draughtsman. At
the cost of repetition, this Court reiterates that the word 'concerned'
relates to 'Draughtsman' and to no other. As stated, there is no
equivalence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent
Commission has no occasion to seek any clarification in so far as
essential qualification for recruitment of Draughtsman in the Urban
Development Department is concerned."
19. But, in so far as the Minor Irrigation Department and
Public Works Department are concerned, this Court constituted a
committee observing as follows:-
"21. At this stage, this Court has two options: firstly, to
decide the case ignoring the opinions given by the Minor Irrigation
Department and the Public Works Department on the querry posed
by the Commission, as those responses are not, as such
determination of equivalence. It is so because it is not based on
relevant academic standards or practical attainments, etc. and
secondly, on the question of equivalence of qualification in respect of
the Minor Irrigation Department and the Public Works Department,
an opinion may be sought from the experts. This Court is of the view
that the later option has to be taken recourse to.
22. The State Authorities, who are the employer should be
required to submit a report of equivalency on education
qualification, pursuant to the communication dated 05.01.2024,
made by the Commission to the Chief Engineer/Head of the
Department of the Minor Irrigation Department as well as
communication of the same date made to the Chief Engineer/Head
of the Department of the Public Works Department.
23. In so far as the recruitment of the Draughtsman in the
Urban Development Department is concerned, the Commission had
no occasion to seek any clarification. The eligibility qualification is
"THE" qualification. It has no doubt in it. Therefore, with regard to
the Urban Development Department, no clarification is to be sought.
But, for recruitment of Draughtsman in the Minor Irrigation
Department and the Public Works Department, pursuant to the
communication dated 05.01.2024 of the Commission, which are part
of the Annexure No.2 to the affidavit of querry, an expert body is to
be constituted and its report has to be considered by the Court with
the comments of concerned Department and the Commission on it.
Therefore, this Court constitutes the following Committee of Experts
for examining the matter:-
1) Chief Engineer/Head of the Department, Minor
Irrigation Department, Uttarakhand.
2) Chief Engineer/Head of the Department, Public Works
Department, Uttarakhand.
3) Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT
Roorkee, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
4) One Expert of Uttarakhand Technical Education
Council Roorkee, District Haridwar, as may be
nominated by its Secretary.
5) An official of the Commission, as may be nominated
by its Secretary, who shall convene the meeting of this
expert body.
24. The Court requests the above expert body to deliberate on
the communication dated 05.01.2024, issued by the Commission to
the Chief Engineer/Head of the Department, Minor Irrigation
Department and the Chief Engineer/Head of the Department, Public
Works Department, which are parts of the Annexure No.2 to the
affidavit of query and submit their report, based on proper
assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and
practical attainments of such qualification. This report shall be
submitted to the Commission. On this report, the Commission shall
place its comments and submit to this Court."
20. The committee has submitted its report. According to it,
the Diploma/Certificate in Draughtsman, Diploma/Certificate in
Architectural Assistant and Diploma in Civil Engineering are all
equivalent for appointment in the Public Works Department and in
the Minor Irrigation Department.
21. It may be noted that insofar as the Urban Development
Department is concerned, this Court on 01.09.2025 held that the
essential qualification for appointment of Draughtsman in the Urban
Development Department is Diploma/ITI Certificate in the concerned
trade and the word "concerned" relates to Draughtsman and to no
other. There is no equivalence. Therefore, pursuant to the order dated
01.09.2025, the report, which has been submitted by the expert
Committee cannot reopen the issue of educational qualification with
regard to Urban Development Department. That issue has attained
finality on 01.09.2025.
22. Learned counsel for the respondent Commission has still
argued that since the syllabus of Diploma in Civil Engineering and
Diploma/Certificate in Architectural Assistant has been studied by
the expert committee and expert committee found that their syllabus
is relevant for Draughtsman, these are also concerned trade.
23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that insofar as the Urban Development Department is
concerned, the essential qualification, which has been prescribed in
the advertisement is "The Qualification"; it does not require any
clarification and the issue has already been settled by this Court on
01.09.2025.
24. This Court need not detain on the issue of essential
qualification insofar as the Urban Development Department is
concerned, because this has already been interpreted and decided by
this Court on 01.09.2025 that insofar as the Urban Development
Department is concerned, the word "concerned trade" relates to
Draughtsman and to no other. Therefore, the expert committee's
report cannot give an occasion to reopen that finding.
25. Insofar as the Minor Irrigation Department and the
Public Works Department are concerned, the issue has now settled.
The expert committee's report, in fact, confirms the communication
given by the Minor Irrigation Department and the Public Works
Department pursuant to the communication dated 05.01.2024 of the
Commission with regard to equivalence. For Minor Irrigation
Department and Public Works Department, the candidates having
any of the following qualifications shall also be eligible for considering
their appointment:-
(i) Diploma in Civil Engineering
(ii) Diploma/Certificate in Draughtsman
(iii) Diploma/Certificate in Architectural
Assistant
26. Admittedly, the Commission has prepared the select list
dated 08.01.2025 while considering the candidates having Diploma in
Civil Engineering and/or Diploma/Certificate in Architectural
Assistant also for the post of Draughtsman in the Urban Development
Department. But, it could not have been done by the Commission.
Insofar as the Urban Development Department is concerned, only
such candidates are eligible for being considered to the post of
Draughtsman, who have done their Diploma/ITI certificate in
Draughtsman trade only.
27. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is
partly allowed.
28. The select list dated 08.01.2025 issued by the
respondent Commission is to be revised so as to ensure that in the
Urban Development Department, only those candidates are eligible
for appointment to the post of Draughtsman, who have done their
Diploma/ITI Certificate in Draughtsman trade only.
29. The select list dated 08.01.2025 issued by the
respondent Commission is quashed to the extent it includes
candidates holding Diploma/certificate other than Diploma/ITI
certificate in Draughtsman in Urban Development Department.
30. The respondent Commission is directed to issue a revised
select list for appointment to the post of Draughtsman in pursuance
of the advertisement dated 29.05.2023 and its corrigendum issued by
the Commission, in the light of the observations made above within a
month.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
04.12.2025
Avneet/
