1. Promotion dispute under GREF Rules, 1982 — Claim for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I based on Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design versus required Diploma in Civil Engineering. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
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
Important Points
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.
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.
Subject
Promotion - Eligibility
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.309
General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules: Column.11
General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules: Column.11
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
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
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
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim equivalence of Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design to Diploma in Civil Engineering; Union of India contends lack of prescribed educational qualifications. (Para 3 )
3. The court found that the rules explicitly require a Diploma in Civil Engineering and that the appellants' Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design is not equivalent. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 )
4. Courts cannot prescribe qualifications or declare academic equivalence unless the rules explicitly provide for it; equivalence is a technical matter for expert bodies or the State. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the prayer for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I rejected. (Para 10 )
6. Can a court declare two different educational qualifications as equivalent for promotion?
No. Courts cannot prescribe qualifications or declare the equivalence of courses unless the rules themselves provide for such equivalence. Equivalence is a technical academic matter to be determined by expert bodies or the State as the recruiting authority. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
7. What is the legal status of academic equivalence in recruitment and promotion?
Equivalence is a technical academic matter that cannot be implied or assumed. It must be established through a specific order or resolution by the relevant academic body and duly published. (Para 6 )
8. To what extent can judicial review interfere with the qualifications prescribed by the State for employment?
Judicial review cannot expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of a prescribed qualification with another. The State, as the employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications based on job nature and aptitude. (Para 7 )
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 promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I is premised on two grounds, i.e., firstly the so-called
