Supreme Court Upholds Eligibility Criteria for Technical Equipment Officers in Army Air Defence: Borgoyary vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1207

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can an individual claim a government post based on the fact that others were mistakenly appointed to the same post, even if they don’t meet the required qualifications? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Technical Equipment Officers (TEO) in the Army Air Defence. The court examined whether the eligibility criteria for TEOs, as set by the Adjutant General’s Branch, were valid and whether individuals who did not meet these criteria could claim parity with others who were erroneously appointed.

The core issue revolved around the validity of the eligibility criteria for the post of Technical Equipment Officer (TEO) in the Army Air Defence (AAD) and whether the appellants, who did not meet these criteria, could claim appointment based on the principle of negative equality. The Supreme Court upheld the eligibility criteria and rejected the appellants’ claims, emphasizing that appointments made in violation of rules cannot be used as a basis for claiming similar benefits.

The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao. There were no concurring or dissenting opinions.

Case Background

The appellants, Pankaj Negi, Deepak Kumar Mishra, and Rwmwi Borgoyary, were all enrolled in the Army Air Defence as Soldier Technicals and were later promoted to Havildars. They each had different specializations and training within the army.

Pankaj Negi was selected for the trade of Operation Fire Control (OFC) and secured a diploma in Radar Technology, Surveillance, Electronic Warfare and Equipment Management from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in 2011.

Deepak Kumar Mishra also cleared Class I grade of his Technical Trade “Operation Fire Control” (OFC) and was awarded a diploma from IGNOU in 2011. He received a “Veerta Patra” and “Commandant’s Appreciation” during his service.

Rwmwi Borgoyary cleared a diploma in Network Administration and Cyber Security, and the Cyberoam Certified Network and Security Professional (CNSP) Course. He also obtained a diploma from IGNOU in Radar Technology, Surveillance, Electronic Warfare and Equipment Management.

In January/February 2016, the appellants applied for the posts of Record Officers and Technical Equipment Officers (TEO) in the AAD. They were permitted to undergo the selection process but were later informed on 23.03.2017 that they were ineligible for the TEO (AAD) category. Their representations to their Commanding Officer were also not successful.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed Original Applications (OA) before the Armed Forces Tribunal after being declared ineligible for the post of TEO. The respondents argued that the eligibility criteria for the Special List (SL) category, as outlined in the letter dated 17.01.2007, required candidates to have the qualification of Technical Instructor Fire Control (AD & FD), which the appellants did not possess.

The respondents further contended that the training for the trade of Operator Fire Control (OFC), which the appellants had, could not be a substitute for the Technical Instructor Fire Control (AD & FD) qualification. They also admitted that some appointments had been made in error but maintained that the appellants were not entitled to appointment as they did not meet the eligibility criteria.

The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the applications, agreeing with the respondents that the training for OFC was not equivalent to the qualification of Technical Instructor Fire Control (AD & FD). The Tribunal also held that the appellants could not claim parity with those who had been mistakenly appointed.

Legal Framework

The eligibility criteria for Technical Equipment Officers (TEO) in the Army Air Defence (AAD) were specified in Appendix ‘A’ to the Adjutant General’s Branch/MP-2 letter dated 17.01.2007. According to this letter, the criteria were:

• Qualification: Senior School Certificate Exam Class XI (CBSE Pattern) or equivalent.
• Service: Minimum 10 years of service on 01 Jul of the year in which the applications are invited.
• Specific Category: JCOs/NCOs from AIG (FD), AIG (CB), AIG (ADO) and TIFC (AD & FD) category or Clk/SKsT Grade-I with five years experience in accounting/holding of Army Eqpt/Stores.

The letter specifically required the qualification of TIFC (AD & FD), which is acquired after selection for the course and a ten-month training at AD College, followed by experience as an instructor.

Army Instruction Nos. 84 and 85 dated 12.10.1974, which govern the selection of JCOs/NCOs for granting permanent commission (Special List) in the Army, were also referred to. These instructions state that candidates should have the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the Special List and specialized knowledge and practical experience related to the duties of the posts they applied for.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Army Instructions of 1974 govern the selection of JCOs/NCOs for granting permanent commission (Special List) and that the standing instructions issued by the Adjutant General’s Branch on 17.01.2007, which prescribed additional qualifications for the post of TEO, were invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.
• They contended that the 2007 instructions could not override the Army Order of 1974.
• The appellants also argued that two persons similarly situated to them had been granted permanent commission and were permitted to continue as commissioned officers. They claimed that the same benefit should be extended to them.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents contended that the Adjutant General (Army) was authorized to introduce new entry schemes and disciplines, including technical educational qualifications, for induction of personnel into the Army, as per a letter dated 01.09.2006 of the Ministry of Defence.
• They argued that the TEO (AAD) category was introduced by the standing instructions of 17.01.2007 by the Adjutant General (Army) and that these instructions were not contrary to the Army Order of 1974.
• The respondents admitted that an error had been made in processing the selection of some individuals for the post of TEO (AAD) but maintained that the appellants were ineligible as they did not have the qualification of TIFC (AD & FD).
• They also stated that the appellants were considered for the post of Record Officer but were not selected due to lack of merit.
• Regarding the claim of discrimination, the respondents argued that the mistake made in appointing ineligible persons was under investigation and corrective action would be taken.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the 2007 instructions were invalid and could not override the 1974 Army Order. This argument attempted to challenge the basis of the eligibility criteria that disqualified them. However, the court did not accept the argument.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the instructions issued on 17.01.2007 prescribing additional qualifications for appointment to the post of TEO suffer from the vice of lack of jurisdiction.
2. Whether the standing instructions issued on 17.01.2007 can override the Army Order dated 12.10.1974.
3. Whether the Appellants can claim appointment to the post of TEO based on the principle of negative equality, given that some ineligible persons were appointed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the Validity of Instructions:

• Army Instruction Nos. 84 and 85 dated 12.10.1974: These instructions govern the selection of JCOs/NCOs for permanent commission. The court noted that the 2007 instructions were in addition to these, not in contradiction.
• Letter dated 01.09.2006 of the Ministry of Defence: This letter delegated administrative powers to the Adjutant General (Army), authorizing him to introduce new entry schemes and disciplines.
• Adjutant General’s Branch/MP-2 letter dated 17.01.2007: This letter specified the eligibility criteria for TEOs, including the requirement of TIFC (AD & FD) qualification.

On Negative Equality:

• State of Odisha & Anr. v. Anup Kumar Senapati & Anr. [(1) 2019 SCC Online SC 1207]: The Supreme Court of India held that there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees equality before the law. The court clarified that this does not extend to claiming parity based on illegal acts.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Court held that the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Adjutant General’s Branch for the post of Technical Equipment Officer (TEO) in the Army Air Defence (AAD) were valid and that the appellants did not meet these criteria.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Army Instruction Nos. 84 and 85 dated 12.10.1974: The Court viewed these as foundational instructions for the selection of JCOs/NCOs but held that the 2007 instructions were additional and not contradictory.
• Letter dated 01.09.2006 of the Ministry of Defence: The Court relied on this to establish the Adjutant General’s authority to issue the 2007 instructions.
• Adjutant General’s Branch/MP-2 letter dated 17.01.2007: The Court upheld this as the valid basis for the eligibility criteria for TEO posts.
• State of Odisha & Anr. v. Anup Kumar Senapati & Anr. [(1) 2019 SCC Online SC 1207]: The Court followed this precedent to reject the claim of negative equality.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The Court interpreted this to mean that equality cannot be claimed based on illegal acts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the prescribed eligibility criteria for the post of Technical Equipment Officer (TEO) and the principle that illegal acts cannot be used as a basis for claiming parity. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining standards for selection to specialized posts like TEO and rejected the argument of negative equality.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations than factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the instructions issued on 17.01.2007 were valid as the Adjutant General (Army) was authorized to issue them. The court also held that these instructions did not contradict the 1974 Army Order but were in addition to it.

The court rejected the argument of negative equality, stating that “the right to equality cannot be claimed in a case where a benefit has been given to a person contrary to law.” It further stated, “If a mistake has been committed by the authorities in appointing few persons who were not eligible, a claim cannot be made by other ineligible persons seeking a direction to the authorities to appoint them in violation of the instructions.”

The court also emphasized that “selection to the post of Technical Equipment Officer requires standards of high order and training in the trade of Operator Fire Control (OFC) is no substitute for the qualification of Technical Instructor Fire Control (AD & FD).”

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, concluding that the appellants’ claims were not valid because they did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria, and the principle of negative equality could not be invoked to justify their appointment.

Key Takeaways

• Adherence to Eligibility Criteria: The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to prescribed eligibility criteria for government posts.
• Rejection of Negative Equality: The principle of negative equality cannot be invoked to claim parity with those who were appointed in violation of rules.
• Validity of Adjutant General’s Instructions: The instructions issued by the Adjutant General (Army) regarding eligibility criteria for TEOs were upheld as valid.
• No Substitute for Required Qualifications: Training in one trade (OFC) cannot be a substitute for the required qualification (TIFC (AD & FD)) for specialized posts.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the principle that appointments must be made strictly in accordance with the rules and that mistakes in appointments cannot be used to justify further illegal acts. It sets a precedent that will likely be followed in similar cases involving appointments to government posts.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that eligibility criteria for government posts must be strictly adhered to, and the principle of negative equality cannot be invoked to claim parity with those who were appointed in violation of rules. There is no change in the previous position of law; the court reaffirmed existing principles.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, upholding the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Court reaffirmed the validity of the eligibility criteria for the post of Technical Equipment Officer (TEO) in the Army Air Defence and rejected the appellants’ claims based on negative equality. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to prescribed qualifications and maintaining standards for appointments to specialized positions.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Appointment of Officers

Parent Category: Army Act, 1950

Child Category: Army Instructions

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Category: Article 14, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Borgoyary vs. Union of India case?

A: The main issue was whether the eligibility criteria for Technical Equipment Officers (TEO) in the Army Air Defence were valid and whether individuals who did not meet these criteria could claim appointment based on parity with others who were mistakenly appointed.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the eligibility criteria for TEOs and rejected the appellants’ claims, stating that there is no concept of negative equality and that appointments made in violation of rules cannot be used as a basis for claiming similar benefits.

Q: What is the principle of negative equality?

A: The principle of negative equality suggests that if some individuals are given a benefit illegally, others should also be given the same benefit. The Supreme Court has rejected this principle, stating that equality cannot be claimed based on illegal acts.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment for government job aspirants?

A: This judgment emphasizes that government job aspirants must strictly adhere to the prescribed eligibility criteria. They cannot claim appointments based on the fact that others were mistakenly appointed to the same post.

Q: Can training in one trade be considered equivalent to another for government job eligibility?

A: No, the Supreme Court held that training in one trade (OFC) cannot be a substitute for the required qualification (TIFC (AD & FD)) for specialized posts. This highlights the importance of having the specific qualifications required for a job.