JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. We have heard Ms. D.T. Azyu, learned Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. B. Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram, assisted by Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned Standing Counsel, Mizoram Public Service Commission for respondent No.6. 2. The petitioners have challenged the Mizoram Public Works Department (Group-B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2022 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 2022”), wherein for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), the educational qualification has been fixed at HSLC with 3(three) years Diploma in Civil Engineering from a Government recognized Institute. The challenge has been laid by the petitioners, who are graduates in Civil Engineering having secured their respective degrees from a recognized University/ Institution. 3. The reason for the challenge is that pursuant to the Rules of 2022, which supersedes the earlier Rules of 2017, namely, Mizoram Public Works Department (Group-B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2017, an advertisement was floated by the Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC) for filling up of 10(ten) posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis. Earlier, under the Rules of 2017, the minimum qualification required for direct recruitment to the said post was HSLC with at least 3(three) years Diploma in Civil Engineering from a Government recognized Institution. (Emphasis provided) 4. With the change in the Rules regarding the minimum qualification, namely, Diploma, the graduate degree holders have been completely excluded from consideration. The grounds on which the Rules have been challenged are that a Graduate Degree is a higher Degree and, therefore, a person having a higher Degree than Diploma ought not to be completely excluded for the purposes of appointment, as it violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The other ground of challenge is that a Graduation Degree in Civil Engineering has to be considered a higher in-line/in-channel degree which again cannot be completely ignored for the purposes of appointment. 5. An ancillary argument has been made that with the Rules of 2022 enforced strictly, the writ petitioners/graduates in Civil Engineering would lose all chances of employment, which is neither appropriate nor desirable. It was also submitted by Ms. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners that with the Rules of 2022, the entire service cadre would be filled up by Diploma holders only. It was also submitted by Ms. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners that with the Rules of 2022, the entire service cadre would be filled up by Diploma holders only. Lastly, it has been submitted that excluding higher Degree for the purposes of appointment does not muster the constitutional challenge of a reasonable classification and a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 6. Countering the afore-noted arguments, Mr. B. Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram, while referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Mizoram, has submitted that there is no gainsaying that a Degree holder in Civil Engineering possesses an advanced qualification compared to the Diploma holders but there is a specific reason for the Government to enact the Rules excluding the Degree holders from being appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis. The degree holders more often than not seek and get opportunities for higher positions leading to constantly vacant positions arising in the Department. This trend had hitherto posed a serious challenge for the Government in the Department of Public Works Department for maintaining continuity in the service and carrying on the developmental works. Apart from this, it has been submitted that the past experience of the Government has been that with the Degree holders in positions, there regularly used to be a workplace discord, affecting the overall performance of the Department. Thus, a conscious decision was taken by the Government to limit the eligibility criteria for the purposes of appointment for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) to only Diploma holders in Civil Engineering to ensure stability and efficiency in the Department. The Government faced difficulties in cases of resignations of Degree holders getting better opportunities and they thereafter resigning from the posts, in filling up the posts as it is a long-drawn process of notifying the vacancy positions, advertising such posts, holding examinations and declaring results. That apart, learned Advocate General, Mizoram has submitted that it cannot be said that a Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering is in the same line of learning as that of Diploma. The course Curriculum of Diploma is different from the Curriculum in Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering. That apart, learned Advocate General, Mizoram has submitted that it cannot be said that a Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering is in the same line of learning as that of Diploma. The course Curriculum of Diploma is different from the Curriculum in Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering. Some of the subjects may be taught in both the courses, but in Diploma course, which is essentially for 3(three) years, there is a greater stress on the field training, which in the past, has been found to be more suitable for the posts of Junior Engineer and that also on contract basis. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, Jyoti K.K. & Ors. -Vs- Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. :: (2010) 15 SCC 596; Chandra Sekhar Singh & Ors. -Vs- State of Jharkhand & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.10389/2024) and Parvaiz Ahmad Parry -Vs- State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. :: (2015) 17 SCC 709 , we find that the Mizoram Public Works Department (Group-B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2022 has superseded the Recruitment Rules of 2017 substituting the essential/minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineers as HSLC with 3(three) years of Diploma in Civil Engineering from a Government recognized Institution. Under the Rules of 2017, the requirement was fluid and that the minimum qualification under the Rules of 2017 was at least 3(three) years Diploma in Civil Engineering. With the new Rules in place, Diploma in Civil Engineering remains the only essential qualification. 8. There is a distinction between minimum qualification and essential qualification. Under the Rules, where essential qualification is prescribed, that is a mandatory qualification but there should not be any difficulty in persons having essential qualification and higher qualification alongside. However, in minimum qualification prescribed, there may not be any insistence for only the minimum qualification and persons with higher qualification also could have applied to be considered. 9. Considering the fact that the recruitment process was on, this Court, as an interim measure, had permitted the Graduate Degree holders in Civil Engineering also to take part in the examination. 10. Mr. 9. Considering the fact that the recruitment process was on, this Court, as an interim measure, had permitted the Graduate Degree holders in Civil Engineering also to take part in the examination. 10. Mr. Lalnunsanga, learned Advocate representing the Mizoram Public Service Commission has submitted that the examination has already been conducted but the results have not been declared for the reason of pendency of this writ petition, which essentially challenges the constitutionality of the Rules of 2022, fixing the essential qualification for such appointment to be Diploma in Civil Engineering. 11. Tested from the angle of the constitutionality of the Act of 2022, we find that the State Government is within its power to frame Rules. This is purely in the domain of the Government as an employer, which knows best, what qualification would be most suited for the posts to be filled up. Any transgression of the judiciary in that field is impermissible unless the Rules are absolutely untenable, completely exclusionary and irrational. 12. To pass the muster of Article 14, the past experience of the Government regarding Degree holders often resigning from their posts creating frequent vacancies; the suitability of Diploma holders for the post of Junior Engineers; the necessity of Diploma holders in the jobs who are intensively trained in the on-the-field job; provide necessary reasons for fixing the essential/minimum qualification, which has an intelligible nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, filling up of the vacancies and effective running of the Department’s function. 13. Any Graduate Degree holder but having a Diploma also definitely would not be excluded from consideration but since essential qualification has been fixed as 3(three) years Diploma, any higher qualification without the essential qualification of Diploma would not suffice. 14. The challenge to the Rules on the ground of it being exclusionary is only being noted to be rejected. There cannot be any insistence of a Degree holder to be permitted to participate in the recruitment process without the minimum/essential qualification. The apprehension of the petitioners that with this Rule in place, the entire rank and file of Junior Engineers and below would be filled up only by Diploma holders ought not to be the concern of the petitioners. There cannot be any insistence of a Degree holder to be permitted to participate in the recruitment process without the minimum/essential qualification. The apprehension of the petitioners that with this Rule in place, the entire rank and file of Junior Engineers and below would be filled up only by Diploma holders ought not to be the concern of the petitioners. The specific averment made on behalf of the State of Mizoram regarding their past experience and of the suitability of the Diploma holders for the job are not to be dealt with lightly. Even otherwise, fixing the essential/minimum qualification for a job is purely in the domain of the Government as an employer, the challenge does not appear to be sustainable. 15. It is always open for the employer to prescribe the qualifications and if any alteration is made as against the earlier Rules, the same cannot be said to be suffering from any arbitrariness or violation of law. [Refer to P.M. Latha & Anr. -Vs- State of Kerala & Ors. :: (2003) 3 SCC 541; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. -Vs- Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors. :: (2003) 3 SCC 548; State of Haryana & Anr. -Vs- Abdul Gaffar Khan & ANr. :: (2006) 11 SCC 153; Jyoti K.K. & Ors. -Vs- Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. :: (2010) 15 SCC 596; State of Punjab & Ors. -Vs- Anita & Ors. :: (2015) 2 SCC 170, and Puneet Sharma & Ors. -Vs- Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Limited & Anr. :: (2021) 16 SCC 340 ]. 16. In Jyoti K.K. (supra), while inviting applications for selection to the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board, the Kerala Public Service Commission had issued notification providing Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognized Institution after 3(three) years course of study as the qualification for the post. The B.Tech. Degree holders in Electrical Engineering and persons holding Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering were ousted from the zone of consideration. The Kerala Public Service Commission had contended that graduates in Engineering and persons possessing other qualification than what was prescribed in the advertisement could not have been taken as a higher qualification as those were not equivalent qualification prescribed for the post and the persons , who possessed higher qualification, could only be considered in cases where they acquired such higher qualification after acquiring the prescribed qualification. However, a provision in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956 provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, higher qualifications which pre-supposes the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post would also be sufficient for the post. The Kerala High Court had rejected the contention of the applicants but the Supreme Court has held that in the event of the Government holding the view that only Diploma holders should have applied for the post of Sub-Engineers but not all those who possessed higher qualification, either the Rules in question should have excluded the candidates who possessed higher qualification or the position should have been made clear that Degree holders shall not be eligible to apply for such posts. When that position is not clear but, on the hand, the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of the higher qualification in the same faculty, it was clear that the Rule was not understood in an appropriate manner. The order of the High Court, therefore, was not sustained and it was found that persons with higher qualification also would be eligible. However, since the Diploma holders had already been selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the Supreme Court chose not to disturb such appointments but directed the State to consider the case of the eligible Degree holders against the existing vacancies. 17. In the present case, the Rules make it very clear that only the Diploma holders would be eligible, which, therefore, means that a person with higher qualification also could apply, provided he/she had the minimum/essential qualification prescribed under the Rules. Thus, the verdict in Jyoti K.K. (supra) does not help the petitioners in challenging the Rules of 2022 per se. 18. In Puneet Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court was confronted with the issue – whether a Degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering is a technically higher qualification than a Diploma in that discipline, and whether Degree holders would be eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment Rules. The minimum/essential qualification provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was matriculation with Diploma in Electrical/Electronics/Electronics and Communication/Computer Science from the recognized Institutions/Boards/Universities duly recognized by the Central or the State Government. The Degree holders in the discipline had also applied for the posts but their final results were not declared. The minimum/essential qualification provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was matriculation with Diploma in Electrical/Electronics/Electronics and Communication/Computer Science from the recognized Institutions/Boards/Universities duly recognized by the Central or the State Government. The Degree holders in the discipline had also applied for the posts but their final results were not declared. They had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in writ proceedings claiming that since they possessed higher educational qualification than the prescribed minimum (and advertised qualification), they could not be denied consideration. The Diploma holders had opposed that claim and had argued that the qualifications possessed by the Degree holders was neither higher nor to be considered in view of the recruitment Rules as also on the basis of the advertisement issued for the purposes by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission. On behalf of the Degree holders, it was contended that in the event of minimum qualification being prescribed, without any bar preventing appointment of Degree holders to the post, Diploma had to be considered as only a minimum requirement, especially in view of the Rules for appointment on higher promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) providing for 5% quota for those who possessed Degree at the time of their appointment as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and 5% separately for those who would acquire the Degree during their service as Junior Engineers (Electrical) after their confirmation. The minimum qualification prescribed would definitely entitle an employer to chose a person with higher qualification as minimum provides a cut-off filter for the same and does not debar recruitment of candidates having higher qualification. The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board had supported the case of the Degree holders and had argued that the Rule in question ought to be interpreted and applied to permit Degree holders a chance of selection. No doing so would amount to excluding better qualified persons and to rob the employer of the chance of choosing a better qualified candidate. It was also contended on behalf of the State Electricity Board that it is the inherent right of the employer to seek out better qualified individuals for public appointment and equivalence of qualification is not a matter for the Courts to determine. It was also contended on behalf of the State Electricity Board that it is the inherent right of the employer to seek out better qualified individuals for public appointment and equivalence of qualification is not a matter for the Courts to determine. Thus, the decision of the High Court in allowing the claim of the Diploma holders holding that Degree is not a better qualification than a Diploma without any expert view was contrary to the settled law. The Supreme Court, while deciding the issue, referred to the judgment in P.M. Latha (supra), where the issue was whether the prescribed and advertised qualification of Trained Teacher Certificates (TTC) included persons who held the B.Ed. Degrees. The Supreme Court had held that B.Ed. qualification could not be considered as a higher qualification than TTC and that the TTC qualification was given to the teachers specially trained to teach small children of primary classes, whereas those with B.Ed. were trained to impart education to the students of higher classes. Similar view was expressed in Yogesh Kumar (supra). The Supreme Court had also referred to Jyoti K.K. (supra) and had noted that the decision therein was based on the provision in the Rule which clarified that those with higher qualification would be deemed to have acquired the lower qualification prescribed for the post and that would be sufficient for eligibility. Another decision which was considered by the Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma (supra) was Anita (supra). In that case also, the minimum qualification prescribed for JBT Teachers was 2(two) years Junior Basic Teachers’ Training. It was held that those with MSc./B.Ed. and MA qualifications were ineligible, looking at the nature of the job, which was teaching primary classes. In all these cases, a distinction had been made with the facts in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra) as in Jyoti K.K. , the appointing authority had the opotion of considering appointment of persons with higher qualifications. The next case referred in Puneet Sharma (supra) was Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. -Vs- Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. :: (2019) 2 SCC 404 In that case, the post in question was of Technician-III in the Power Development Department in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The relevant stipulation regarding qualification was matriculation with ITI in the relevant Trade. In that case, the appellants had held Diploma in Electrical Engineering but they were disqualified. :: (2019) 2 SCC 404 In that case, the post in question was of Technician-III in the Power Development Department in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The relevant stipulation regarding qualification was matriculation with ITI in the relevant Trade. In that case, the appellants had held Diploma in Electrical Engineering but they were disqualified. The Supreme Court adumbrated that while prescribing the qualification for a post, the State, as an employer, bears in mind several features including the nature of the job; the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties; the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of the public services. Exigencies of administration fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The State is perfectly entitled, as a public employer, to take into account social perspectives requiring creation of job opportunities across the societal structure, which would essentially fall in the domain of policy matters, judicial review must tread warily. It was in this context that in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) was understood, especially in the context of a special statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification pre- supposed the acquisition of a lower qualification, which was considered to be sufficient for the post. 19. After having gone through all the afore-noted judgments, the Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma (supra) examined the Rules, especially the sub-quota for 5% of the candidates who would be Diploma holders, who would acquire Degree qualification during services as Junior Engineers and 5% of those candidates, who would acquire Degrees after joining as Junior Engineers. It was thus read that the Rule making authority had in mind that Degree holders too would compete for the position of Junior Engineers as individuals holding equivalent or higher qualification. The Supreme Court noted that if such interpretation were not given, there would be no meaning in the 5% of sub-quota set apart for those who are Degree holders before joining as Junior Engineers in terms of the extant recruitment Rules. The Supreme Court also took note of the latest amendments in the concerned Rules clarifying that even for the post of Junior Engineers, those individuals holding higher qualification would be eligible to compete. The Supreme Court also took note of the latest amendments in the concerned Rules clarifying that even for the post of Junior Engineers, those individuals holding higher qualification would be eligible to compete. Though the amending Rules were brought into force prospectively but since the same were only clarificatory, it was held that the Rules would apply to the recruitment, which was the subject matter of controversy from before. 20. In the present Rules of 2022, we find that the stipulation is very specific with regard to the qualification prescribed, which is Diploma in Civil Engineering. There is no rational behind holding a Degree in such discipline to be in-line/channel higher qualification which would automatically subsume in itself the lesser qualification of Diploma. If a Degree holder also has the qualification of Diploma, he would be eligible without any other interpretation required. The prescription of qualification for post, as has already been noted, is a matter of recruitment policy and the State, as the employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as the condition of eligibility. It is not part of the role or function of the judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. It cannot be denied that while prescribing qualifications for a particular post, the employer may pitch in various factors, especially dealing with functionality of the post as also the creation of the job opportunities across the societal structure. It was with a conscious intent in mind that the qualification prescribed in the Rules was not preceeded with the word “at least” or “minimum”, leaving the qualification of Diploma to be the only qualification determining eligibility, unless a holder of higher qualification of Degree also possessed the qualification of Diploma. 21. The reliance of the writ petitioners on the decisions in Chandra Sekhar Singh (supra) and Parvaiz Ahmad Parry (supra) is thus not applicable. 22. In Parvaiz Ahmad Parry (supra), the appellant therein possessed Degrees in B.Sc. with Forestry as one of his major subjects as well as M.Sc. (Forestry). The qualification prescribed in the advertisement was B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any University recognized by ICAR. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s qualification were equivalent to the minimum prescribed qualifications and should be considered for the concerned post. 23. with Forestry as one of his major subjects as well as M.Sc. (Forestry). The qualification prescribed in the advertisement was B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any University recognized by ICAR. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s qualification were equivalent to the minimum prescribed qualifications and should be considered for the concerned post. 23. In Chandra Sekhar Singh (supra), the question was whether Degree, as mentioned in the averment therein, included a Post-Graduate Degree which the appellants therein possessed. The Supreme Court, applying the golden rule of interpretation, held that the word “degree”, would include within its scope and ambit all 3(three) degrees, namely, Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree and a Doctorate Degree – unless a specific expulsion has been made. 24. Recently, the Supreme Court in Jomon K.K. -Vs- Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc. :: 2025 5 SCR 369 has held that statutory qualifications for public employment must be strictly adhered to and higher qualifications do not confer eligibility if specific requirements are not made. The Supreme Court in Jomon K.K. (supra) has held as under:- “36. We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other factors. It has to be remembered that, at times, the employer’s need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of decisions holding that over-qualification cannot be a disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand and on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or inflexible rules or norms. We know of decisions holding that over-qualification cannot be a disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand and on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or inflexible rules or norms. Lack of public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain unemployed for ever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled up by such degree holders? What happens if the Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for sub-serving the common good? Does not the State have the obligation to strive to ensure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no Court can afford to ignore. We end by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post.” Emphasis provided by us) 25. Thus, we do not find any good reason to question the correctness of the Rules of 2022 when there is no challenge to the rule making power and the classification is sought to be justified on ground which has a direct link to the purpose which is sought to be achieved, namely, continuity in the service and effective functioning of the Public Works Department. We, for the sake of clarity, however, specify that a Degree holder, who also has acquired Diploma, would be eligible under the Rules as notwithstanding the intent of the Government in fixing the essential/only qualification as Diploma for the posts, there does not appear to be any clear intendment in the Rules about the ouster of candidates with higher degree also along with the essential qualification of Diploma. 26. Thus, Diploma is the essential qualification, without the possession of which, a candidate would not be eligible. A person having a Graduate Degree would be eligible only if he has Diploma qualification also. 27. The petition thus fails and, therefore, the same stands dismissed. 28. The interim order dated 26.03.2025 passed by this Court stands vacated.