Supreme Court Upholds Requirement of Diploma in Civil Engineering for Promotion: Unnikrishnan vs. Union of India (2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design is equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Unnikrishnan CV and Others vs. Union of India and Others

[Judgment Date]: 28 March 2023

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2023

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Manoj Misra, J., Aravind Kumar, J.

Can a government employee claim a promotion to a higher post if they do not possess the exact educational qualification required by the service rules? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law matter concerning promotions within the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). The core issue was whether a diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) is equivalent to a diploma in Civil Engineering, which is a mandatory requirement for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I. The Supreme Court, in a three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra, and Aravind Kumar, held that it is not. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

The appellants in this case were initially appointed as Overseers/Surveyor Draughtsmen (Field and Topo) between 1977 and 1986, based on their ITI certificates. Later, they were given the opportunity to pursue a Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) at government expense. Some of the appellants were subsequently promoted to Superintendent BR Grade-II, while others were not. The denial of promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer led to the filing of a writ petition before the High Court. The appellants argued that they were entitled to promotion based on Column 11 of the General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1982 (GREF Rules, 1982). They contended that their Diploma in DED should be considered equivalent to the required Diploma in Civil Engineering.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court rejected the appellants’ claim for promotion to Superintendent Grade-I. The High Court held that the AICTE notification only recognized the diploma in the respective field as an eligible qualification but did not equate it to a degree, which is required for the post of Superintendent Grade-I. The High Court also distinguished the earlier order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1364 of 1998, stating that it dealt with a different fact situation where a three-year diploma was considered sufficient, unlike the present case which requires a degree.

Legal Framework

The General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1982 (GREF Rules, 1982) were framed by the Union of India under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Rule 2 of the GREF Rules, 1982 specifies that it applies to the posts listed under Column 1 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules.

Column 11 of the Schedule of the GREF Rules, 1982, specifies the qualifications for promotion to the post of Superintendent Building and Roads Grade-I:

“Promotion: Superintendent, Buildings and Roads, Grade II with recognized Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the grade in General Reserve Force.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that they were entitled to promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I based on Column 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982. They contended that:

• Their Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) should be considered equivalent to the Diploma in Civil Engineering required by the rules.
• They had been given the opportunity to pursue the DED course at government expense, indicating its relevance to their roles.
• Juniors with Civil Engineering/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering diplomas from CME, Pune, were promoted to Superintendent BR Grade-II immediately after passing their diplomas, while they were not promoted to the higher rank.

The Union of India argued that:

• As per Rule 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982, the appellants did not possess the requisite qualification of a Diploma in Civil Engineering.
• The rules explicitly require a Diploma in Civil Engineering for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I.
• The appellants’ Diploma in DED is not equivalent to the prescribed Diploma in Civil Engineering.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellants are entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintendent BR, Grade-I?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

Authorities and their use by the Court:

• Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610:* The Court relied on this case to reiterate that equivalence is a technical academic matter that cannot be implied or assumed. It emphasized that any decision on equivalence must be made by a specific order or resolution by the relevant academic body.
• Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404:* The Court cited this case to support the principle that the State, as an employer, has the right to prescribe qualifications for eligibility. It further held that judicial review cannot expand the scope of prescribed qualifications or determine the equivalence of qualifications.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the explicit language of the GREF Rules, 1982, which clearly stated that a “Diploma in Civil Engineering” was required for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I. The Court emphasized that it could not substitute its views for those of expert bodies or prescribe qualifications not explicitly mentioned in the rules. The Court also noted that the appellants had not provided any material to demonstrate that the Diploma in DED was equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the argument that the Diploma in DED should be treated as equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering, but rejected it, stating that courts would not prescribe qualifications or declare equivalency unless the rules explicitly stated so. The Court also rejected the argument that rules for direct recruitment would apply to promotions, emphasizing that the rules for promotion were clear and specific. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that it cannot substitute its views for those of expert bodies or expand the scope of prescribed qualifications.

The Court stated, “It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies.”

The Court also observed, “The presumption on which the Writ Petition seems to have been presented is on the premise that appellants have been denied promotion on the ground that they possess a two year diploma not three year diploma, by completely ignoring the fact that denial of promotion is on the ground that candidates do not possess the prescribed requisite qualification namely ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering’ and ‘Diploma in DED’ possessed by them is not as prescribed under the Rules.”

The Court concluded, “For the reasons afore-stated, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be rejected and accordingly it stands rejected as being devoid of merits.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case; all three judges on the bench concurred with the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Government employees seeking promotions must possess the exact educational qualifications prescribed in the service rules.
• Courts will not determine the equivalency of educational qualifications unless explicitly stated in the rules.
• The State, as an employer, has the right to prescribe qualifications for eligibility, and judicial review cannot expand the scope of these qualifications.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I, a candidate must possess a Diploma in Civil Engineering as explicitly stated in the GREF Rules, 1982, and that courts will not substitute their views for those of expert bodies on the equivalency of qualifications. This judgment reinforces the principle that service rules must be strictly adhered to, and that courts will not interfere with the employer’s prerogative to prescribe qualifications for promotion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the appellants were not entitled to promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I because they did not possess the required Diploma in Civil Engineering. The Court emphasized that it cannot declare the equivalency of a course or prescribe qualifications not explicitly mentioned in the rules. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the prescribed qualifications for promotions in government service.