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

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 28, 2023. Citation: 2023 INSC 3042. Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul J., Manoj Misra J., Aravind Kumar J. (authored the judgment). Can a government employee claim promotion to a higher post based on a diploma that is not the one specifically prescribed in the service rules? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning promotions within the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). The core issue was whether a diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) could be considered equivalent to a diploma in Civil Engineering, which is a mandatory requirement for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I as per the GREF Rules, 1982. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra, and Aravind Kumar, delivered the judgment, with Justice Aravind Kumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellants were initially appointed as Overseers/Surveyor Draughtsmen (Field and Topo) between 1977 and 1986, possessing ITI certificates as per the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) Rules, 1982. They were later given the opportunity to pursue a Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) at government expense from CME Pune. After completing the course, some were promoted to Superintendent BR Grade-II, while others were not. The appellants sought promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer, claiming eligibility under Column 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982. The Union of India denied these promotions, stating that Column 11 requires a “Diploma in Civil Engineering,” while the appellants held a “Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design.”

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 167 of 2013 in the High Court seeking promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I and Assistant Engineer, as well as a direction to grant pay-scale of 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996. The High Court rejected the claim for promotion, holding that the appellants did not possess the required “Diploma in Civil Engineering,” and that the Diploma in DED was not equivalent to a degree. However, the High Court granted the prayer for the pay-scale. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against the rejection of their promotion claim. The High Court considered the AICTE notification and the order of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1364 of 1998, dated 03.08.2005.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1982 (GREF Rules, 1982), specifically Column 11 of the Schedule. The relevant portion of the schedule is as follows:

“For promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I, the prescribed or requisite qualification is from the candidates/employees working as Superintendent, BR Grade-II with recognized Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the Grade in General Reserve Engineering Force.”

The 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 stipulates that it applies to the posts specified under Column 1 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that they were entitled to promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I as per Column 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982.
• They contended that their Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) should be considered equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering, as prescribed in the rules for promotion.
• They asserted that juniors with diplomas in Civil Engineering/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering from CME, Pune, were promoted to Superintendent BR Grade-II immediately after completing their diplomas, while the appellants were denied promotion.
• Initially, the appellants erroneously argued before the High Court that a Diploma is equivalent to a Degree, which was rejected by the High Court.
• The appellants also argued that the rule applicable for direct recruitment should also be applicable for promotion.
• The appellants contended that their Diploma in DED is a 2-year course, and although Column 11 prescribes a Diploma in Civil Engineering, it should be treated as equivalent.

Arguments of the Respondents (Union of India):

• The Union of India argued that, as per Rule 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982, the appellants did not possess the requisite qualification for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I.
• They emphasized that Column 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982, specifically requires a “Diploma in Civil Engineering,” and the appellants possessed a “Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design,” which is different.
• The Union of India maintained that the rules are clear and do not provide for equivalence between the two diplomas.

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 Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provision:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: The Court noted that the GREF Rules 1982 were framed by the Union of India under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the government to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610:* The Supreme Court used this case to support its stance that equivalence of qualifications is a technical matter and cannot be assumed. The Court emphasized that any decision regarding equivalence must be made by the appropriate academic body through a specific order or resolution.
• Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404:* The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight that the State, as an employer, has the right to prescribe qualifications for eligibility. The Court also reiterated that judicial review cannot expand the scope of the prescribed qualifications or determine the equivalence of qualifications. This authority was used to reinforce the principle that the equivalence of qualifications is a matter for the recruiting authority to decide.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear and unambiguous language of the GREF Rules, 1982, which specifically required a “Diploma in Civil Engineering” for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I. The Court emphasized that it could not substitute its view for that of the expert bodies responsible for determining academic equivalence. The Court also highlighted the principle that the State, as an employer, has the right to prescribe qualifications for eligibility and that judicial review cannot expand the scope of these qualifications. The Court also noted that the appellants had initially taken an erroneous position before the High Court by claiming that a Diploma is equivalent to a Degree.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that a Diploma in DED should be considered equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering. However, it rejected this argument, stating that equivalence is a technical academic matter and cannot be assumed by the courts. The Court also rejected the argument that the rule applicable for direct recruitment should be applicable for promotion. The Court concluded that the rules were clear and specific, requiring a “Diploma in Civil Engineering” for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The GREF Rules, 1982, clearly specify that a “Diploma in Civil Engineering” is required for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I.
• The appellants possessed a “Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design,” which is not the prescribed qualification.
• The courts cannot prescribe qualifications or declare the equivalency of courses.
• The State, as an employer, has the right to prescribe qualifications for eligibility.
• The appellants failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that their Diploma in DED is equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering.

The court did not have a dissenting opinion and the judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench.

Key Takeaways

• Government employees must possess the specific qualifications prescribed in the service rules for promotion to higher posts.
• Courts cannot assume equivalence between different qualifications; such determinations are within the purview of expert bodies.
• The State, as an employer, has the right to prescribe qualifications for eligibility for promotions.
• Employees seeking promotion must adhere to the prescribed qualifications, and any deviation must be supported by evidence and specific orders or resolutions.

This judgment reinforces the principle that service rules must be strictly adhered to, and any claims for promotion must be based on the qualifications specifically prescribed in the rules. It also clarifies that courts cannot substitute their views for those of expert bodies in matters of academic equivalence.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I, the candidate must possess a “Diploma in Civil Engineering” as prescribed in the GREF Rules, 1982, and that a Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) is not considered equivalent unless specifically declared by the relevant authority. This judgment reinforces the existing position of law that courts cannot assume equivalence between different qualifications and that the employer has the right to prescribe qualifications for eligibility, and that the rules must be strictly adhered to.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the appellants were not entitled to promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I because they did not possess the requisite “Diploma in Civil Engineering.” The Court emphasized that equivalence of qualifications is a technical academic matter that cannot be assumed by the courts and that the State has the right to prescribe qualifications for eligibility. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to service rules and the limitations of judicial intervention in matters of academic equivalence.