SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 288

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Unnikrishnan CV & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7188 OF 2013
Decided On : 28-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Wasim Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra S Srivatsa, Adv. Mr. Albhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Promotion – Equivalence is a technical academic matter – It cannot be implied or assumed – Equivalence of qualification is a matter for State, as recruiting authority, to determine.

Headnote:

Service Law – Promotion – [Column 11 of GREF Rules, 1982] – Post of Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer – Appellants possess Diploma in DED and not Diploma in Civil Engineering – Courts would not prescribe qualification and/or declare equivalency of a course – Until and unless rule itself prescribes equivalency, different courses being treated alike, courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies – Equivalence is a technical academic matter – It cannot be implied or assumed – Any decision of academic body of university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published – Judicial review can neither expand ambit of prescribed qualifications nor decide equivalence of prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification – Equivalence of qualification is a matter for State, as recruiting authority, to determine – No material has been placed on record by appellants to demonstrate that Diploma in DED is equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering – Eligibility for promotional post namely Superintendent BR Grade-I is not conditioned by any year wise stipulations vis-à-vis diploma course – Prayer of appellants cannot be granted – Appeal rejected. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:

Appellants are claiming promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer as per Column 11 of General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1982 (GREF Rules, 1982).

Findings of Court:

Diploma courses offered by College of Military Engineering, Pune, (CME) has been recognized as a course for recruitment to post under the Central Government vide notification dated 01.02.2001, issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development (Annexure P-8). Said notification does not indicate diploma courses specified therein which are recognized by Government of India are to be treated as equivalent. No material has been placed on record by appellants to demonstrate that Diploma in DED is equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering.

Result : Appeal rejected.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Appellants are claiming promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer as per Column 11 of General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GREF Rules, 1982’ for sake of brevity).

Short facts necessary for disposing of this appeal are crystallized as under :

Between 1977 and 1986, appellants came to be appointed to the posts of Overseers/Surveyor Draughtsman (Field and Topo) in accordance with the provisions of column No. 7 of GREF Rules, 1982. The next promotional post from Surveyor Draughtsman/Overseers is the post of Superintendent Grade-II. Petitioners were possessing ITI certificate at the time of their appointment as prescribed under Column 7 of Schedule I of GREF Rules, 1982. On being appointed they were given opportunity to pursue course in Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED, for short) at Government expenditure from CME Pune and were awarded Diploma certificate after completion of the course. Some of the appellants came to be promoted to Superintendent BR II and some of them were denied. The posts held by the Appellants as on date of presentation of Writ Petition before the High Court is tabulated hereinbelow for convenience and immediate reference:

S.No.

Petitioner’s Name

Date of Appointment with initial post

Date of promotion with Post

1.

GS159693P UNNIKRISHNAN CV

23-07-1983 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

31-12-1993 Supdt BR-II

2.

GS160939 BHAGWAN DAS

06-07-1984 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

15-04-2001 Supdt- BR-II

3.

GS162102 SURJIT DAS

21-06-1985 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

Not yet promoted

4.

GS159880 KARAMJIT MALIK

12-10-1983 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

23-08-1664 Supdt BR-II

5.

GS162098 MOHINDER SINGH

21.06.1985 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

03.03.2008 Supdt BR-II

6.

GS159704 RAMNIVAS

29-07-1983 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

17-12-1993 Supdt BR-II

7.

GS157772L BALKAR SINGH

23-08-1982 Overseer

31.01-2002 Supdt BR-II

8.

GS158152F BALWINDER SINGH

01-09-1982 Overseer

12-02-2001 Supdt BR-II

9.

GS159017 ABHIMANYU SINGH

01-11-1982 Overseer

Not yet promoted

10.

GS157742 PARAMJIT SINGH

19-08-1982 Overseer

04-01-2000 Supdt BR-II

11.

GS162099 JASVEER SINGH

21.06.1985 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

06.03.2008 Supdt BR-II

12.

GS162867 RISHIKESH MALLIK

16.01.1986 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

05.03.2008 Supdt BR-II

13.

GS155226 RAJENDER SINGH

27-12-77 Overseer

15-09-1986 Supdt BR-II

14.

GS120857 BS NEGI

31.05-1975 Overseer

16-12-1986 Supdt BR-II

15.

GS155089 SAMUEL T

18-18-1977 Overseer

21-10-1986 Supdt BR-II

16.

GS161008 RAJENDRAN NAIR

02-08-1984 Overseer

28-02-2008 Supdt BR-II

17.

GS159881 SACHCHIDANAND SINGH

12-10-1983 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

03-02-1995 Supdt BR-II

18.

GS156203-S, JAGBIR SINGH

15.12.81 S/D Man (Fd/Topo)

14-09-1992 Supdt BR-II

Aforesaid data would indicate that first promotional post was superintendent BR Grade-II and most of the appellants as indicated hereinabove are serving in the said post after having been promoted between 1993 to 2008.

2. Non-granting of promotion to Grade-I and Assistant Engineer is said to be the cause of action for filing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 167 of 2013 wherein it was contended that as per column 11 of GREF Rules, 1982, they are entitled to be promoted to said post which has been denied by Union of India on the premise that column 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 provides that a candidate should possess “Diploma in Civil Engineering” whereas appellants were possessing “Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design”. The High Court by Impugned Order rejected the prayer of the appellants on the ground that:

    (i) Appellants’ claim for


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top