The court affirmed that the employer determines qualification equivalence, emphasizing judicial restraint in recruitment matters.

JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. We are yet again seized with the common question in recruitment jurisprudence, whether the appellants' qualifications for the post in question meet the standard prescribed in the recruitment notification. This issue is not novel, and this Court has established clear guidelines for judicial review and restraint in determining equivalency. Following these principles, having carefully examined the decision of the employer (U.T. of Lakshadweep) to recognize the appellants' qualifications as equivalent, we found it to be both justifiable and reasonable. Having considered the governing recruitment rules, submissions of the learned counsel and relevant precedents, we allow the appeal. Consequently, we set aside the High Court's decision, which had held that the appellants lacked equivalent qualifications and resulted in the termination of their appointments.

2. Facts: The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

The Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Department of Electricity had issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), a Group ‘C’ post. The required qualification was specified to be a Degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognized university, or a Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized institution with two years of experience in any of the fields specified under the relevant recruitment rules.

3. The appellants are all Diploma-holders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, whereas the respondents hold a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The appellants and the respondents had participated in the selection process. Pursuant to the recruitment process, the authority published a select list on 03.09.2008 as per which the appellants were declared selected.

4. Aggrieved, the respondents, whose names did not figure in the Select List, filed Original Applications¹ [Original Application Nos. 91 of 2009, 554 of 2008, and 638 of 2008] before the Central Administrative Tribunal² [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’] contending that the appellants held a degree other than the ones specified in the advertisement, and as such, not qualified to be appointed to the post.

5. CAT accepted the said contention and by the common order dated 27.01.2010 allowed the original applications and set aside the appellant’s selection. It relied on the text of the advertisement, and held that unstated qualifications cannot be read as a part of those which are specified.

6. Hence, the appellants filed writ petitions³ [Writ Petition Nos. 15398 of 2010, 6014 of 2010, 14891 of 2010 and OP (CAT) No. 1305 of 2010] before the High Court challenging the CAT’s decision. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the order impugned before us, dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the decision of the CAT. The High Court was of the view that (i) the advertisement was clear in its requirement, and that the appellants did not possess what was required; (ii) the relevant recruitment rules, namely the Lakshadweep Electricity Dept. (Group C and D Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002, did not provide for any equivalence between Diplomas in Electrical Engineering and Diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering; (iii) the Lakshadweep Administration had not issued any official instruction granting such equivalence and (iv) candidates figuring in the ranked select-list have no indefeasible right to selection.

7. In this view of the matter, the High Court directed that the select list be recast by only including candidates who possessed the exact qualification as prescribed by the advertisement, and the eligible candidates from the fresh list shall replace the appellants. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 17308/2017, 1