Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ALOK KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Brijesh Kumar Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
Union of India And Others - Respondent
Restoration Application No. 02 of 2019; Writ Petition No. 588 of 2017
Decided On : 11-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Ajay Veer Pundir, Adv., Sanjay Bhatt, Adv., Prabha Naithani, Adv., Vikas Pande, Adv., Yogesh Pacholia, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the academic qualifications prescribed by the Rule making authority must be met for appointment to a specific position, and the court cannot direct the authority to prescribe different qualifications.
Headnote:
academic qualifications - appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer - Uttarakhand Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group "B") Rules, 2003 - Rule 5(a)(iii), Rule 8 - AICTE, UGC, AICTE, DEC - The court discussed Rule 5(a)(iii) and Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, which stipulate the academic qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. It highlighted the requirement for a degree in Civil or Mechanical Engineering from a recognized institution and the recognition of qualifications by AICTE, UGC, and DEC. The court emphasized that the petitioner's qualifications did not meet the prescribed academic qualifications and upheld the decision that the petitioner was ineligible for the appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the 7.33 per cent quota of graduate Civil Engineer, claiming equivalence of his qualification of AMICE(I) to a B.Tech degree in Engineering. The State Government rejected his candidature based on a report opining that his qualification was obtained through distance mode and not recognized.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's qualifications did not meet the prescribed academic qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer as per Rule 5(a)(iii) and Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner possessed the academic qualifications stipulated in Rule 5(a)(iii) and Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the decision that the petitioner did not possess the required academic qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer as per Rule 5(a)(iii) and Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner was ineligible for the appointment as Assistant Engineer.
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.
1. The application, to restore the writ petition to file, is not opposed by Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, and the application for restoration is, therefore, allowed and the writ petition is restored to file.
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 11.09.2017; and for a mandamus commanding the second respondent to provide promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the 7.33 per cent quota of graduate Civil Engineer, along with all consequential benefits, including notional promotion from 2012.
3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner sought permission, vide letters dated 28.04.2010 and 18.11.2010, from the department to pursue a B.Tech degree course in Civil Engineering. The seventh respondent granted permission to the petitioner to pursue his B.Tech degree course in Civil Engineering vide letter dated 31.12.2010. The petitioner claims to have pursued his B.Tech degree course from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India) at Ludhiana (Punjab), and to have been awarded Associate Membership [AMICE(I)] which, according to him, is equivalent to a B.Tech degree in Engineering. It is also the petitioner's case that his qualification of AMICE(I) has been duly recognised by the AICTE, as is evident from the letter dated 16.09.2008; and this course is also recognised by the Union of India as per the notification dated 06.11.2007.
4. After the petitioner underwent the course in Civil Engineering, from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India) at Ludhiana (Punjab), he sought appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer under the degree quota by submitting an application dated 18.10.2012. Under the Uttarakhand Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group "B") Rules, 2003 (for short the "2003 Rules") 7.33 per cent of the posts of Assistant Engineers are reserved for Junior Engineers appointed against substantive vacancies, and having a graduate degree in Civil Engineering. The petitioner's name is said to have been short-listed against the vacant post of Assistant Engineer, against the relevant quota for the selection year 2012-13, against 15 vacant posts. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the letter dated 25.04.2008, issued by the Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University, to submit that the petitioner's qualification is pursuant to a regular course of study, and is not by distance mode.
5. A Committee was constituted by the fifth respondent to ascertain the validity of the qualification held by the petitioner. The Committee, in its report dated 28.05.2013, opined that the qualification obtained by the petitioner was through distance mode. It is the petitioner's case that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, and the Committee had not considered the letter dated 31.01.2013 issued by the Institution of Civil Engineers (India) at Ludhiana (Punjab). The petitioner's candidature, for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, was rejected on the basis of this report dated 28.05.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1482 of 2013, which was disposed of by order dated 08.05.2017 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case, in view of the letter dated 29.11.2013, within a period of twelve weeks. After the writ petition was disposed of, the second respondent considered the matter afresh, and passed the impugned order dated 11.09.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that, with regards the status of a degree in Civil Engineering obtained through distance mode, the State Government had addressed a letter to the University
