Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Puneet Sharma & Ors. Etc - Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. Etc. - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1318-1322 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 10533-10537 of 2020) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1323-1324 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 10538- 10539 of 2020) And Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1028 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) – Direct recruitment to post of JEs in HPSEB is to the extent of 72% – Eligibility is amongst those who passed in matriculation or 10+2 or its equivalent qualification – However, diploma holders’ contention that minimum qualification is matriculation and that technical qualification is diploma is incorrect – 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 – Term “with” in this category has to be read as conjunctive – Even for post of Junior Engineers, those individuals holding higher qualifications are eligible to compete – Though amending rules were brought into force prospectively, nevertheless, being clarificatory, they apply to recruitment that is subject matter of present controversy – HPSEB has been making contractual appointments from amongst degree holders in cadre of Junior Engineers and an order was issued upon recommendation of Screening Committee which had cleared regularization of 28 such candidates – These degree holders are equivalent to Junior Engineers and had been working for periods ranging between 4 to 6 years – Intent of rule makers was not to exclude degree holders from consideration for lower post of Junior Engineers – Amending provisions should be deemed to have been inserted from inception – Respondent HPSEB directed to process candidature of all applicants including degree holders who participated, and depending on relative merits, proceed to issue final selection list of all successful candidates, after holding interviews – Impugned judgment set aside. (Paras 29, 33, 36, 37, 38 and 39)
Facts of the case:
Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering is technically a 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, is the issue that falls for decision in these appeals arising out of a common judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Findings of Court:
In appeal, it has been specifically averred that the HPSEB has been making contractual appointments from amongst degree holders in the cadre of Junior Engineers, and that an order was issued upon recommendation of the Screening Committee, which through its meeting held on 11.04.2018 had cleared the regularization of 28 such candidates. These degree holders are equivalent to Junior Engineers, and had been working for periods ranging between 4 to 6 years. A copy of that order has been produced as Annexure P-10 in Special Leave Petition.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER :
RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel, the appeals and petition were heard finally.
2. Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering is technically a 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, is the issue that falls for decision in these appeals arising out of a common judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court 1[In CWP No. 138/2020, CWPOA No. 3601/2019 and CWPOA No. 3633/2019 filed by the degree-holders (hereafter 'degree-holders’) claiming the right of consideration, and CWPOA No. 6534/2019 and CWPOA No. 6252/2020 have been filed by the diploma holders (“diploma-holder”) opposing the claim of the degree-holders]. As is evident, this issue is not novel and has an almost endemic tendency requiring judicial attention, albeit in myriad and diverse contexts.
3. The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection commission (“HPSSC” hereafter), acting on the requisition sent by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., (“HPSEB” hereafter) advertised 222 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical- hereafter referred to as “JE”) on 27.06.2018. Degree-holders in the concerned discipline applied for the post; after qualifying the written examination, they were called for verification of documents but the final result was not declared. They approached the High Court in writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed educational qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum (and advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration. The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argued that that the qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor can be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the basis of the advertisement issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission. The HPSEB adopted a neutral position; however, it highlighted that per the applicable regulations, the minimum essential qualification provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.) was "matriculation with Diploma in Electrical/ Electronics/Electronics and Communication/ Computer Science from the recognized Institution/ Board/University duly recognized by the Central or State Government". HPSEB further stated that the HPSSC could not traverse beyond the regulations, and was bound to make recruitments in accordance with them. The HPSSC, which issued the advertisement and conducted the selection, opposed the petitions and asserted that degree holders could not be considered for recruitment.
4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court considered the parties’ submissions, the position in the recruitment rules, and various decisions of this court2[Jyoti KK v Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) 15 SCC 596;State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557; State of Punjab v Anita {(2015) 2 SCC 170} Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v State of Jammu and Kashmir &Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 Zahoor Ahmad Rather v Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad {(2019) 2 SCC 404; Maharashtra Public Service Commission, v Sandeep Shriram Warade&ors 2019 (6) SCC 362; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors v Aaraya K. Babu &Anr (2019) 8 SCC 587] besides its own decisions3[Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission & Ors v Pawan Thakur 2019 (3) Shim. L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v State of HP &ors(CWP No. 161/2019); AvinashKoundal v Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No. 1155/2020)], and concluded that:
“40. It would be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that normal rule would be that candidate with higher qualification is deemed to be fulfilled the lower qualification prescribed for the post. But that higher qualification has to be in the same channe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
