Supreme Court Clarifies Equivalency of Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering for Junior Engineer Post: Sajid Khan vs. L Rahmath Ullah (20 February 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 20, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 251
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Manoj Misra, J.

When can an employer’s decision regarding qualification equivalency be challenged? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The central issue revolved around whether a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering could be considered equivalent to a Diploma in Electrical Engineering, as specified in the recruitment notification.

The Supreme Court, in this civil appeal, examined the employer’s decision to recognize the appellant’s qualifications as equivalent to those prescribed in the recruitment notification. The bench, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision that had resulted in the termination of the appellants’ appointments.

Case Background

The Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Department of Electricity, issued an advertisement for the recruitment of Junior Engineers (Electrical). The required qualification was a Degree in Electrical Engineering or a Diploma in Electrical Engineering with two years of experience in specified fields.

The appellants held Diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, while the respondents held Diplomas in Electrical Engineering. After the selection process, the appellants were declared selected on September 3, 2008.

Aggrieved by their non-selection, the respondents filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), contending that the appellants’ qualifications did not meet the requirements of the advertisement.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The CAT accepted the respondents’ contention and set aside the appellants’ selection on January 27, 2010, stating that unstated qualifications cannot be considered part of the specified qualifications.

The appellants then filed writ petitions before the High Court, challenging the CAT’s decision. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the CAT’s decision. The High Court noted that the advertisement was clear, the recruitment rules did not provide for equivalence between the diplomas, the Lakshadweep Administration had not issued any instructions granting equivalence, and candidates in the select list had no indefeasible right to selection.

The High Court directed that the select list be recast, including only candidates with the exact prescribed qualifications.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework governing the case is the Lakshadweep Electricity Department (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002. These rules specify the qualifications required for direct recruits to the post of Junior Engineer.

As per the schedule of the rules, the educational qualifications for direct recruits are:

• Degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognized University OR
• Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized institution with 2 years of experience in specific fields.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and Electrical Engineering are similar in nature, and no formal declaration of equivalence is needed.
• The only difference is that the diploma held by the appellants includes an additional subject, i.e., electronics engineering.
• The syllabus for both diplomas is the same.
• The recruiting authority considered the diplomas equivalent after receiving clarification from the Directorate of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram, Government of Kerala.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• Equivalence between degrees must be specified in the rules or by the recruiting authority.
• The advertisement does not include a diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering.
• Relying on Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610], the respondents argued that qualifications must be taken exactly as specified, and equivalency cannot be implied.
• Accepting candidates with different qualifications would be a fraud on the public, as held in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655].
• Relying on Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [(1997) 4 SCC 18], it was submitted that a public authority should be strictly held to what it represented.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the appellants’ qualifications for the post in question meet the standard prescribed in the recruitment notification.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610] – The respondents relied on this case to argue that qualifications must be taken exactly as specified.
• District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655] – The respondents argued that deviating from the advertisement would be a fraud on the public.
• Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [(1997) 4 SCC 18] – The respondents submitted that a public authority should be strictly held to what it represented.
• Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2021) 12 SCC 390] – The Court cited this case to emphasize that the employer is the best judge of who should be appointed.
• Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. [(2020) 4 SCC 86] – The Court considered the approach to be adopted by the recruiting agency while considering the issue of equivalence of qualifications.
• Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade [(2019) 6 SCC 362] – The Court held that the essential qualifications for appointment are for the employer to decide.
• Union of India v. Uzair Imran [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308] – The Court emphasized the restraint a court must exercise while determining equivalence between qualifications.
• Mohd Shujat Ali v. Union of India [(1975) 3 SCC 76]
• Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan [1982 (2) SCC 55]
• Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad [(2019) 2 SCC 404]
• Punjab University v. Narinder Kumar [(1999) 9 SCC 8] – The Court held that conditions of recruitment have to be viewed reasonably.
• Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union of India [(1980) 3 SCC 202] – The Court stated that terms and conditions of service are to be construed reasonably.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610]: The Court distinguished this case, emphasizing that the employer had already determined the equivalency in this case.
• District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655]: The Court distinguished this case, finding no fraud on the public as the employer had made an informed decision.
• Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2021) 12 SCC 390]: The Court relied upon this case, reiterating that the employer is the best judge of who should be appointed.
• Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. [(2020) 4 SCC 86]: The Court relied upon this case, emphasizing the recruiting agency’s obligation to scrutinize qualifications.
• Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade [(2019) 6 SCC 362]: The Court relied upon this case, reiterating that essential qualifications are for the employer to decide.
• Union of India v. Uzair Imran [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308]: The Court relied upon this case, emphasizing the restraint a court must exercise while determining equivalence.

The Court held that the decisions of the CAT and the High Court were not sustainable in law and allowed the appeals by the appointed candidates.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the recruiting authority had already assessed the similarities between the two qualifications before issuing the advertisement. The Court emphasized that it is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess, according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the employer’s assessment of equivalency and the recruiting authority’s scrutiny of the qualifications.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the arguments for and against the equivalency of the diplomas. It rejected the argument that qualifications must be taken exactly as specified, emphasizing that the employer had already determined the equivalency in this case. The Court also rejected the argument that accepting different qualifications would be a fraud on the public, finding that the employer had made an informed decision.

The Court quoted Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2021) 12 SCC 390]: “the employer ultimately being the best judge of who should be appointed.”

The Court also quoted Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. [(2020) 4 SCC 86]: “The equivalence of qualification as claimed by a candidate is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer.”

Finally, the Court quoted Union of India v. Uzair Imran [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308]: “Normally, it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications.”

Key Takeaways

• The employer is the best judge of who should be appointed and is responsible for determining the essential qualifications for a post.
• Courts should exercise restraint in determining the equivalence of qualifications and should not interfere with the employer’s decision unless it is arbitrary or illegal.
• Conditions of recruitment, such as required qualifications, have to be viewed reasonably.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the employer is the best judge of who should be appointed, and courts should exercise restraint in determining the equivalence of qualifications. The Court reiterated that it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications, and the employer’s decision should be respected unless it is arbitrary or illegal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sajid Khan vs. L Rahmath Ullah clarifies that the employer has the primary responsibility for determining the equivalence of qualifications for a post. Courts should exercise restraint and not interfere with the employer’s decision unless it is arbitrary or illegal. This decision reinforces the principle that the employer is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess, according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work.