Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 45 (MEG)

Ranjeet Singh v. Union of India

2018-08-07

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mr. Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. The issue as has cropped up for determination is as to whether a candidate possessing, a "Degree in Civil Engineering" is eligible for the post of "Naib subedar" for which prescribed minimum qualification is "Diploma in Civil Engineering." 2. From the office of Directorate General Assam Rifles, an advertisement dated 05.01.2017 had been issued inviting applications for filling of various posts which include 1(one) post of Naib Subedar(Building and Road) to be filled in from a general category candidate belonging to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. As per Appendix A to the said advertisement notice, the respondent authorities had published State/Category wise available vacancies for Assam Rifles Technical and Tradesmen Recruitment Rally, 2016-17, in which for the State of Uttar Pradesh, 1(one) post of Naib Subedar(Building and Road) under general category was also to be filled up. 4. Amongst others, petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 competed for the said post. The petitioner has secured 37 marks whereas the respondent No. 3 has secured 47 marks. On the basis of merit, respondent No. 3 has been selected. Aggrieved whereof, the petitioner has filed the instant petition projecting therein that the respondent No. 3 was not eligible to compete for the said post on the ground of possessing degree in Civil Engineering which is not a prescribed qualification for the post. It is further projected that though the respondent No. 3 possessed higher degree but without holding Diploma in Civil Engineering he should not have been considered for selection. 5. In the advertisement notice, the prescribed qualification for the post of Naib Subedar(Building and Road) is: (a) Matric or equivalent from a recognized Board or University; (b) Diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognized institution. 6. Admittedly, petitioner possess the prescribed minimum qualification whereas, the respondent No. 3 is a degree holder in Civil Engineering which according to the petitioner, does not include Diploma in Civil Engineering. 7. In the additional affidavit as filed by the respondents NO.1 and 2, the position has been made clear. It has been stated that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is the apex body constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 for ensuring proper planning of the technical education in the country. 7. In the additional affidavit as filed by the respondents NO.1 and 2, the position has been made clear. It has been stated that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is the apex body constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 for ensuring proper planning of the technical education in the country. AICTE has framed regulation called "All India Council for Technical Education(AICTE) for admission of students in Degree Engineering Programmes through Lateral Entry Regulations, 2007" (herein after referred to as Regulations 2007) which suggests that B.Tech degree is a higher qualification as compared to Diploma in Engineering. 8. It is an admitted fact that the degree which respondent No. 3 possess is in the relevant discipline i.e., in Civil Engineering whereas, the petitioner possesses Diploma in Civil Engineering. When it is so, it shall be totally irrelevant to say that degree in Civil Engineering does not include Diploma in Civil Engineering. Said position is made further clear by the Regulation No. 6.1 of the Regulations 2007. For facility of reference same is quoted herein below: "6.1 Admission Of Diploma Holders Into Second Year Degree Engineering Programmes Through Lateral Entry 6.1(a) Admission of Diploma Holders Although engineering diploma programmes are conceived as terminal in nature, some flexibility has to be built in to enable the meritorious amongst diploma holders to obtain Engineering degrees. There is evidence of diploma holders pursing as Engineering programme having performed well not only in their academic careers but also in their job. 6.1(b) Eligibility For being eligible to seek lateral entry to an Engineering degree programme at the second year/third semester level, a candidate must have passed the diploma in Engineering in the relevant branch with a minimum of 60 percent in the aggregate. Only Candidates fulfilling these conditions would be eligible for appearing in the entrance test meant for selection of diploma holders for Lateral entry to degree programmes. The selection of candidates will be based on an entrance test, the merit ranking in the test being the basic of admission. At present students obtain diploma through different programme in different States/UTs. Such programmes have difference structures and forms like the semester pattern, annual pattern, sandwich pattern, etc. In order to maintain uniformity, a common entrance examination seems essential. Further, it is necessary to select only meritorious students who have passed the diploma with good academic record. At present students obtain diploma through different programme in different States/UTs. Such programmes have difference structures and forms like the semester pattern, annual pattern, sandwich pattern, etc. In order to maintain uniformity, a common entrance examination seems essential. Further, it is necessary to select only meritorious students who have passed the diploma with good academic record. A student who has acquired a diploma in Engineering through a minimum of three years of institutional study, after 10+(Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination) can be considered academically equivalent to a student who has passed the first year of the four year Engineering degree programme for which the qualify examination is of the 12+ level. The affiliating University may prescribe compensatory courses to make up deficiencies for diploma holders, who are admitted through lateral entry". (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Plain reading of the Regulations 2007 framed by an expert body leaves no scope for not holding, that the Degree in Civil Engineering takes in its fold the Diploma in Civil Engineering. The degree in Civil Engineering presupposes inclusion of Diploma in Civil Engineering. 10. The respondents in their affidavit-in-reply have made it clear that the respondent No. 3 is meritorious having secured 47 marks whereas, the petitioner has secured 37 marks. Therefore, on the basis of merit, the respondent No. 3 has been rightly selected. It is further stated that the Diploma in Civil Engineering as possessed by the petitioner is lower than the qualification of degree in Civil Engineering. The respondent No. 3 possessing the degree in Civil Engineering is more beneficial for the interest of the UOI/Assam Rifles. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 94 of 2011 titled "Smt. Lorind Lalthannguri and others v. State of Mizoram and others" decided on 27.04.2012 but the said judgment is of no help to him as in the reported judgment the issue was as to whether the candidates having the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy(B.Pharma) are eligible to compete for post of Pharmacist for which the prescribed qualification is Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma). (a) In the said judgment it has been noticed that nothing has been placed on record to indicate that Degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy(B. Pharma) includes within it the Diiploma in Pharmacy i.e., D. Pharma. (a) In the said judgment it has been noticed that nothing has been placed on record to indicate that Degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy(B. Pharma) includes within it the Diiploma in Pharmacy i.e., D. Pharma. A degree in Pharmacy may be a higher qualification but in absence of minimum prescribed qualification i.e., Diploma in Pharmacy, candidates cannot be said to have been possessing the requisite qualification. (b) While referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of "State of Haryana and another v. Abdul Gaffar Khan and another" reported in (2006) 11 SCC 153 , it has been noticed that in the said case appointment had been denied to the candidates as against the post of Unani Dispenser on the ground that they did not possess the qualification of Diploma in Unani Dispenser. It has been recorded that the Hon'ble Apex Court on a scrutiny of the relevant recruitment rules found that rules do not expressly exclude the Degree in Unani Dispenser and Surgery for the post of Unani Dispenser. The Hon'ble apex Court also found that the advertisement issued did not anywhere stipulate the diploma as the required qualification. (c) In the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka rendered in the case of "Karnataka Public Service Commission and others v. N.C. Hugar" reported in 1981(I) SLR 469, as referred to the question for determination was as to whether a candidate possessing a higher educational qualification than the minimum educational qualification prescribed for a post is eligible for being appointed to that post. It has been held that eligibility for being appointed to a post depends on the question whether the candidate possesses minimum educational qualification for the post. (d) The learned Gauhati High Court in essence has held that in absence of the basic minimum qualification, the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy, cannot be considered to be qualification for the post, in support whereof, the Court has observed that there is nothing on record to indicate that the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy includes within it the Diploma in Pharmacy like Post-Graduation includes within it Graduation. 12. 12. Applying the test as has been laid down in the said judgment, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also High Court of Karnataka, the test is as to whether the higher qualification includes within it the lower qualification ' If the answer is yes, the candidate possessing higher educational qualification in relevant subject is eligible for selection and appointment. 13. Coming to the case in hand, the position of possessing higher qualification i.e., Degree in Civil Engineering as per Regulation No. 6 of the Regulations 2007 framed by the expert technical body(AICTE), the Degree in Civil Engineering presuppose possessing of diploma in Civil Engineering. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of "S. Gurmeet Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors" decided on 13.12.2007 reported in 2008(1) JKJ 68 . In the said judgment, the issue for determination was similar to one as is in the present case. The Court while referring to Regulations 2007, rejected the action of the respondent-Board treating the petitioners therein ineligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors for which minimum educational qualification was prescribed as Diploma in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering. The degree holders of any discipline in the light of the Regulations 2007 framed by the AICTE were held to be eligible by holding "that graduate in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering shall be treated as holding higher qualification than that of the Diploma holders in the relevant discipline therein. Therefore, they cannot be treated to be ineligible to compete for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. 15. As concluded herein above, that the respondent No. 3 possessing Degree in Civil Engineering presupposes to hold the Diploma in Civil Engineering in the light of Regulation 6.1 of the Regulations, 2007. The selection of the respondent No. 3, both on the basis of possessing higher educational qualification which include within it the lower qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering and then having secured 47 marks as against 37 marks obtained by the petitioner, is uninterferable. In any case, the respondent No. 3 being meritorious candidate, has been rightly selected. The selection of the respondent No. 3, both on the basis of possessing higher educational qualification which include within it the lower qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering and then having secured 47 marks as against 37 marks obtained by the petitioner, is uninterferable. In any case, the respondent No. 3 being meritorious candidate, has been rightly selected. The respondents in a more transparent manner without any ambiguity in their pleadings have projected satisfactorily the justification for selection of the respondent No. 3 and also justified that the petitioner is inferior in merit so failed to make the grade, no exception can be taken to the process of selection of respondent No. 3. 16. For the foregoing reasons, circumstances and position of law, the petition is devoid of merit, as such, is dismissed. I was inclined to impose costs but considering that petitioner may as yet be unemployed, therefore, no order as to costs.