Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Technician-III Posts: Diploma Holders Not Equivalent to ITI (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 1047

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J and Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Can a candidate holding a diploma in electrical engineering be considered eligible for the post of Technician-III, which requires a matriculation with an ITI certification? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the eligibility criteria for government jobs. The core issue revolves around whether a higher qualification, like a diploma, automatically fulfills the requirement of a lower qualification, such as an ITI certification. The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud delivered the judgment, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The Government of Jammu and Kashmir created 23,297 posts in various departments on 4 December 1996, including 5,330 in the Power Development Department. Among these were 3,675 posts for Technician-III, requiring “Matric with ITI,” and 200 posts for Junior Engineer, requiring a B.E. (electrical) or diploma (electrical). On 23 February 2013, the J&K State Service Selection Board (SSSB) advertised for Technician-III posts, specifying that applicants must possess the prescribed qualifications by 31 March 2013. The advertisement also stated that the prescribed qualifications were the bare minimum and that the board could grant weightage to higher qualifications.

Several candidates, including the appellants, applied for the Technician-III positions. The appellants held diplomas in electrical or electronics and communication engineering but did not have ITI certifications. Initially, these candidates were allowed to participate in the written test and interview. However, the SSSB later decided that only candidates with ITI certifications in the relevant trade (electrician) would be considered eligible. Consequently, the appellants were excluded from the final select list, leading them to file writ petitions challenging their disqualification.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed writ petitions after being excluded from the select list. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, stating that the SSSB could not exclude the appellants after the selection process had begun, especially since they were not on the initial list of disqualified candidates. The Single Judge reasoned that since diploma holders were eligible for the higher post of Junior Engineer, they should be considered eligible for the lower post of Technician-III. The Single Judge quashed the select list and directed the SSSB to reframe it based on merit.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge’s decision. It held that the advertisement clearly required an ITI in the relevant trade as a condition of eligibility and that the SSSB had not granted any weightage to higher qualifications. The Division Bench upheld the SSSB’s decision to consider only candidates with ITI certifications as eligible, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in P M Latha v State of Kerala [ (2003) 3 SCC 541 ].

Legal Framework

The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralisation and Recruitment Act, 2010, stipulates in Section 6 that a person is eligible for appointment to a District Cadre post only if they possess the prescribed qualifications, eligibility, and experience as specified under the rules/orders regulating recruitment to such posts.

The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, framed under the Act, outline the procedure for inviting applications and eligibility for different cadres. Rule 13(1) and (3) state that the Board shall invite applications from candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications for the advertised posts. Rule 14(1) provides for the preparation of a select list based on a written test, viva-voce, and weightage for higher qualifications, if any. Rule 14(4) states that the select list shall be equal to the number of vacancies for which requisition was made.

The qualification prescribed for the post of Technician-III is “Matric with ITI”.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that a diploma is a higher qualification than an ITI certification. They emphasized Note 12 of the advertisement, which states that the prescribed qualification (Matric with ITI) is the “bare minimum requirement,” and that weightage can be given to higher qualifications.
• They contended that ITI holders are eligible for lateral entry into diploma courses in Electrical Engineering, implying that a diploma presupposes the acquisition of an ITI qualification.
• The appellants relied on previous advertisements and mark sheets to support their claim that diploma holders are not prohibited from applying for the post of Technician-III. They also cited an affidavit filed by the Board in a previous case, Ravinder Singh v State, where the Board appeared to acknowledge the eligibility of candidates with higher qualifications.
• The appellants cited Jyoti K.K. v Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596], arguing that a higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification, unless explicitly excluded.

SSSB’s Arguments:

• The SSSB argued that the prescribed qualification for Technician-III, as per the government order, is “Matric with ITI.”
• The SSSB stated that it is a statutory body with a restricted mandate and is bound by its provisions.
• The SSSB’s 116th meeting resolved that only candidates with ITI in the relevant trade (Electrician) would be eligible, in accordance with the advertisement.
• The SSSB argued that Note 12 of the advertisement is an enabling provision that allows the Board to grant weightage to higher qualifications for shortlisting, but it is not mandatory.
• The SSSB stated that it decided not to grant any weightage to higher qualifications and that the process followed was fair and in accordance with the prescribed qualifications.
• The SSSB contended that a diploma holder does not fulfill the requirement of “Matric with ITI.”

State of Jammu & Kashmir Arguments:

• The State of Jammu & Kashmir supported the SSSB, arguing that the SSSB did not change the rules mid-stream but rather affirmed the prescribed qualifications.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellants’ argument that a diploma presupposes an ITI qualification and their reliance on Note 12 to claim eligibility were innovative. They also emphasized the fact that they were allowed to participate in the selection process initially.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the appellants, holding diplomas in electrical or electronics and communication engineering, were eligible for the post of Technician-III, which required “Matric with ITI in relevant trade.”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• P M Latha v State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 541] – The Supreme Court of India held that a B.Ed. qualification is not a higher qualification than the Trained Teachers Certificate (TTC) for primary school teachers.
• Yogesh Kumar v Government (NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 3 SCC 548] – This case also supports the view that a higher qualification does not automatically make a candidate eligible for a post requiring a specific lower qualification.
• Jyoti K.K. v Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596] – The Supreme Court held that a higher qualification can presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification if the rules permit it.
• State of Punjab v Anita [(2015) 2 SCC 170] – The Supreme Court clarified that the principle in Jyoti K.K. applies only if there is a specific rule allowing higher qualifications to presuppose lower ones.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralisation and Recruitment Act, 2010 – Specifies that a person is eligible for appointment to a District Cadre post only if they possess the prescribed qualifications, eligibility, and experience.
• Rule 13(1) and (3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 – Outlines the procedure for inviting applications and eligibility for different cadres, stating that the Board shall invite applications from candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications.
• Rule 14(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 – Provides for the preparation of a select list based on a written test, viva-voce, and weightage for higher qualifications, if any.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed P M Latha v State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 541] and Yogesh Kumar v Government (NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 3 SCC 548] to emphasize that a higher qualification does not automatically make a candidate eligible for a post requiring a specific lower qualification.
• The Court distinguished Jyoti K.K. v Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596], clarifying that the principle of a higher qualification presupposing a lower one applies only when explicitly permitted by the rules. The court followed the interpretation of Jyoti K.K in State of Punjab v Anita [(2015) 2 SCC 170].

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed qualifications for a post, as set by the recruiting authority. The Court highlighted that the state, as an employer, has the right to determine the qualifications necessary for a job, and it is not for the courts to expand or alter these requirements. The Court also noted that enabling provisions, such as Note 12, provide discretion to the Board and do not mandate any specific action. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need for consistency and fairness in the selection process, as well as the principle that higher qualifications do not automatically equate to fulfilling the requirements of a lower qualification.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that a diploma automatically fulfills the requirement of an ITI certification, emphasizing that the employer has the right to set specific qualifications. The court also clarified that enabling provisions do not create a mandate.

The Court observed that a candidate has no vested right to assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional weightage to a higher qualification. The court held that whether to do so or not is a matter for the Board to determine.

The Court observed that the decision in Jyoti K.K. v Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.

The Court held that “The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications.”

The Court held that “Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine.”

The Court held that “The stipulation that the qualification prescribed is the bare minimum requirement of the job emphasises that it is an essential requirement, a threshold which cannot be dispensed with.”

Key Takeaways

• A higher qualification, such as a diploma, does not automatically fulfill the requirement of a lower qualification, such as an ITI certification, unless explicitly stated in the recruitment rules.
• Recruiting authorities have the right to prescribe qualifications for posts, and courts should not interfere with these decisions unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory.
• Enabling provisions in advertisements do not create a mandate for the recruiting authority to grant weightage to higher qualifications.
• Candidates must meet the prescribed qualifications as stated in the advertisement to be eligible for a post.
• The decision in Jyoti K.K. v Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596] applies only when there is a specific rule allowing higher qualifications to presuppose lower qualifications.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants should be granted an age relaxation of four years should they apply for any other post that may be advertised by the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the next two years. The age relaxation of four years shall be available to the appellants for any post advertised up to 30 November 2020.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a higher qualification does not automatically fulfill the requirement of a lower qualification unless explicitly stated in the rules. This judgment reinforces the principle that recruiting authorities have the right to prescribe specific qualifications for posts, and courts should not interfere with these decisions unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory. This judgment clarifies the scope of the decision in Jyoti K.K. v Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596] and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues of eligibility.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that diploma holders are not eligible for the post of Technician-III, which requires a “Matric with ITI” certification. The Court emphasized that a higher qualification does not automatically fulfill the requirement of a lower qualification and that recruiting authorities have the right to prescribe specific qualifications for posts. The judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for government jobs and reinforces the importance of adhering to prescribed qualifications.