The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of justices Uday Umesh Lalit & S. Ravindra Bhat has held that Degree holders cannot be excluded from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers in a plea against Himachal Pradesh High Court which said that the Degree holders are not eligible for the appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) notified by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission. (Puneet Sharma & Ors. Etc v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Anr. Etc.)
The divisional bench noted, “…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.”
Facts of the case
The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection commission (“HPSSC”) on 27.06.2018 after acting on the requisition sent by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., (“HPSEB”) advertised 222 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) (“JE”). Degree-holders in the concerned discipline applied for the post; after qualifying the written examination, they were called for verification of documents but did not declare the final result.
Thereafter, degree holders approached the High Court in writ proceedings, claiming that they could not be denied consideration since they possessed educational qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum (and advertised) qualifications. This claim was opposed by the diploma holders who argued that the qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor could be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules & also on the basis of the advertisement issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission. HPSSC which issued advertisements & conducted the selection also opposed the petitions & asserted that degree holders could not be considered for recruitment.
The High Court after considering the submissions of the parties, the position in the recruitment rules & besides its own decisions various decisions of the Court opined that the degree holder petitioners could not be permitted to urge that they possess higher qualification which would meet the requirement of specific qualifications specified in the rules or advertisement. The Court was also of the view that only those with matriculation and holding diploma in the relevant subject were considered eligible for the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court.
Issue before the Court
Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering was technically a higher qualification than a diploma in that discipline and, whether degree holders were eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical).
Contention of the Parties
Ms. Kavita Wadia, appearing for the degree holder appellants, contended that the expression “minimum” was deliberately used without any bar under the rules and did not prevent appointment of degree holders to the post of JE (Elect.) in HPSEB, and that diploma was only a minimum requirement. This, she argued is established beyond doubt from Clause 11 of the Rules for appointment to higher promotional post of Assistant Engineers (Elect.) where under 5% quota is provided for those who possessing degree at the time of their appointment as JE (Elect.) and 5% separately for those who acquired degree during their service as JE (Elect.) after their confirmation. She relies on the decision of this court in Govt of A.P. vs P. Dalip Kumar which held that the expression ‘minimum’ entitles the employer to choose a person with higher qualification. A minimum acts as a cut-off filter for the same, and does not debar recruitment of higher qualified candidates.
Ms. Wadia submitted that the arguments of diploma holders, i.e. that the “with” in the rules, is disjunctive (in column 7) - while providing that the qualification stipulated would be “Minimum Matriculation with diploma in electrical engineering/electrical & Electronics Engineering ...”-defies logic because if ‘with’ were disjunctive and expression ‘minimum’ was used for making matriculation as a minimum educational requirement, then there was no need to use the expression “minimum” since to pursue the diploma course a candidate has to have passed matriculation as is reflected in the requirements for admission to diploma courses in prospectuses of government colleges.
In other words, Ms. Wadia contended, the minimum qualification would only be matriculation in that case, defeating the purpose of the rule, which is that those diploma holders with matriculation would be considered as possessing the minimum or threshold qualification. It is submitted that “minimum” was intentionally used without any bar under the Rules concerning the appointment of degree holders to the Post of JE (Elect.) in HPSEB, making diploma as only a minimum requirement. This is established beyond doubt from Clause 11 of the Rules for appointment to higher promotional post of Assistant Engineers (Elect). The expression ‘minimum’ entitles the employer to choose a person with higher qualification as ‘minimum’ acts as a cut off filter for the same and does not debar recruitment of those who are higher qualified.
On behalf of the contesting respondents, i.e. the diploma holders, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel requested this court not to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. It is submitted that the expression “minimum” is used with the academic qualification, i.e. matriculation and not the essential technical qualification, viz. a diploma. A diploma in electrical engineering can be obtained after pursuing a three years course. That should be preceded by a matriculation or after completing a two years study- after 10thstandard in school. Therefore, a candidate to be eligible should have obtained a diploma after matriculation or after 10+2. This clearly eliminated degree holders from the zone of eligibility.
It was argued that the use of “with” between minimum “matriculation” and diploma operates as a disjunctive. It cannot be read with the word diploma. It was submitted that only diploma holders such as the contesting respondents could be considered for selection; their selections were finalized on 02.09.2020 and the select list was prepared by the Commission. Having fulfilled the eligibility conditions and after getting selected through a valid and legal selection process, the entire recruitment process was valid. Accordingly, such of the contesting respondents who qualified in the exam and were successful deserved to be appointed.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench allowed B E or B Tech degree holders to apply for jobs to the post of Junior Engineers in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. The top court pointed out a close examination of the rules showed that a lion’s share of the posts at the JE level was set apart for direct recruitment.
However, when it is at the level of the higher post i.e. Assistant Engineer, which is a promotional post, direct recruitment is only to the extent of 36 per cent. Of the balance 64 per cent, various sub-quotas have been stipulated for feeder cadres, the largest percentage being for Junior Engineers, it said.
The court opinioned that, “Yet, of material significance is the fact that the higher post of Assistant 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”
Justice Bhat rejected a contention by diploma holders that the minimum qualification for the post of JEs was matriculation and that the technical qualification was just diploma as "incorrect".
"Undoubtedly, eligibility is amongst those who passed in matriculation or 10+2 or its equivalent qualification. The minimum qualification for the post cannot be deemed to be only matriculation but rather that only such of those matriculates, or 10+2 pass students who are diploma holders would be eligible. The term “with” in this category has to be read as conjunctive," the court said, interpreting the rules.
The appeal was allowed by the court stating that, “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. These batches of appeals by the degree holders have to succeed. The respondent HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants, including the degree holders who participated, and depending on the relative merits, proceed to issue the final selection list of all successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CtaPnKOuLs9CpBuLETBxYf57HC8D_V9v/view?usp=sharing
Picture Source :
