# PUNEET SHARMA & ORS. ETC v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR. ETC

- **Citation:** [2021] 4 S.C.R. 351
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-04-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 13181322 of 2021
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/puneet-sharma-ors-etc-v-himachal-pradesh-state-electricity-board-ltd-anr-etc-35216
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Service Law: Appointment - Eligibility - Himachal Pradesh
Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC), acting on the requisition sent
by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., (HPSEB)
advertised 222 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) - Degreeholders in the concerned discipline approached the High Court in
writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed educational
qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum (and
advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration
- The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argued that the
qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor
can be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the
basis of the advertisement issued by HPSSC - Eligibility of degree
holders for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical)
under the relevant recruitment rules - Held: The higher post of
Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer) has nearly
2/3rds (64%) promotional quota - Amongst these individuals, those
who held degrees before appointment as a Junior Engineers are
entitled for consideration in a separate and distinct sub-quota,
provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a
prescribed period - This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it
only shows the intent of the rule makers was not to exclude degree
holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers
- In addition to these considerations, an amendment to the rules
was made on 03.06.2020 declaring that those with higher
qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for
appointment - This amendment was brought in to clear all doubts
and controversies and, in that sense, the amending provisions should
be deemed to have been inserted from inception - Thus, respondent
HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
including the degree holders who participated, and depending on
the relative merits, proceed to issue the final selection list of all
successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc.
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v.
Anit Kumar Das 2020 SCC On Line SC 897; Zile Singh
v. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 3 Suppl.
SCR 400; Vijay v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 6 SCC
289 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 81; Manish Kumar v. Union
of India (2019) 8 SCC 416: [2019] 10 SCR 381 - relied
on.
P.M. Latha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2003) 3
SCC 541 : [2003] 2 SCR 653; Yogesh Kumar & Ors v.
Government of NCT Delhi & Ors (2003) 3 SCC 548 :
[2003] 2 SCR 662; State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2
SCC 170 : [2014] 14 SCR 819; Zahoor Ahmad Rather
v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 : [2018] 14
SCR 1082 - distinguished.
Jyoti KK v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
15 SCC 596; State of Uttarakhand and others v. Deep
Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557 :
[2013] 17 SCR 1016; Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 : [2015]
12 SCR 810; Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors 2019 (6) SCC 362 :
[2019] 7 SCR 94; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal
Office, Kochi & Ors v. Aaraya K. Babu & Anr (2019) 8
SCC 587 : [2019] 11 SCR 627; Himachal Pradesh Staff
Selection Commission & Ors v. Pawan Thakur 2019
(3) Shim. L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v. State of HP
& Ors (CWP No. 161/2019); Avinash Koundal v.
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No.
1155/2020); Govt of A.P. v. P. Dalip Kumar 1993 (2)
SCC 310 : [1993] 1 SCR 435; A.K Raghumani Singh
& Ors v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors 2000 (4) SCC 30
: [2000] 2 SCR 943; CHD v. Usha Kheterpal Waie 2011
(9) SCC 645 : [2011] 12 SCR 398 - referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
Case Law Reference
(2010) 15 SCC 596
referred to
Para 4
[2013] 17 SCR 1016
referred to
Para 4
[2014] 14 SCR 819
distinguished
Para 4
[2015] 12 SCR 810
referred to
Para 4
[2018] 14 SCR 1082
distinguished
Para 4
[2019] 7 SCR 94
referred to
Para 4
[201

## Text

_Characters 0–39,762 of 55,538. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39762 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
 [2021] 4 S.C.R. 351
351
PUNEET SHARMA & ORS. ETC
v.
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LTD. & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No (S). 1318-1322 of 2021)
APRIL 07, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment - Eligibility - Himachal Pradesh
Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC), acting on the requisition sent
by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., (HPSEB)
advertised 222 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) - Degreeholders in the concerned discipline approached the High Court in
writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed educational
qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum (and
advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration
- The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argued that the
qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor
can be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the
basis of the advertisement issued by HPSSC - Eligibility of degree
holders for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical)
under the relevant recruitment rules - Held: The higher post of
Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer) has nearly
2/3rds (64%) promotional quota - Amongst these individuals, those
who held degrees before appointment as a Junior Engineers are
entitled for consideration in a separate and distinct sub-quota,
provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a
prescribed period - This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it
only shows the intent of the rule makers was not to exclude degree
holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers
- In addition to these considerations, an amendment to the rules
was made on 03.06.2020 declaring that those with higher
qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for
appointment - This amendment was brought in to clear all doubts
and controversies and, in that sense, the amending provisions should
be deemed to have been inserted from inception - Thus, respondent
HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
including the degree holders who participated, and depending on
the relative merits, proceed to issue the final selection list of all
successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc.
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v.
Anit Kumar Das 2020 SCC On Line SC 897; Zile Singh
v. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 3 Suppl.
SCR 400; Vijay v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 6 SCC
289 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 81; Manish Kumar v. Union
of India (2019) 8 SCC 416: [2019] 10 SCR 381 - relied
on.
P.M. Latha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2003) 3
SCC 541 : [2003] 2 SCR 653; Yogesh Kumar & Ors v.
Government of NCT Delhi & Ors (2003) 3 SCC 548 :
[2003] 2 SCR 662; State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2
SCC 170 : [2014] 14 SCR 819; Zahoor Ahmad Rather
v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 : [2018] 14
SCR 1082 - distinguished.
Jyoti KK v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
15 SCC 596; State of Uttarakhand and others v. Deep
Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557 :
[2013] 17 SCR 1016; Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 : [2015]
12 SCR 810; Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors 2019 (6) SCC 362 :
[2019] 7 SCR 94; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal
Office, Kochi & Ors v. Aaraya K. Babu & Anr (2019) 8
SCC 587 : [2019] 11 SCR 627; Himachal Pradesh Staff
Selection Commission & Ors v. Pawan Thakur 2019
(3) Shim. L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v. State of HP
& Ors (CWP No. 161/2019); Avinash Koundal v.
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No.
1155/2020); Govt of A.P. v. P. Dalip Kumar 1993 (2)
SCC 310 : [1993] 1 SCR 435; A.K Raghumani Singh
& Ors v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors 2000 (4) SCC 30
: [2000] 2 SCR 943; CHD v. Usha Kheterpal Waie 2011
(9) SCC 645 : [2011] 12 SCR 398 - referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
Case Law Reference
(2010) 15 SCC 596
referred to
Para 4
[2013] 17 SCR 1016
referred to
Para 4
[2014] 14 SCR 819
distinguished
Para 4
[2015] 12 SCR 810
referred to
Para 4
[2018] 14 SCR 1082
distinguished
Para 4
[2019] 7 SCR 94
referred to
Para 4
[2019] 11 SCR 627
referred to
Para 4
[1993] 1 SCR 435
referred to
Para 5
[2000] 2 SCR 943
referred to
Para 7
[2011] 12 SCR 398
referred to
Para 7
[2003] 2 SCR 653
distinguished
Para 22
[2003] 2 SCR 662
distinguished
Para 22
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 400
relied on
Para 33
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 81
relied on
Para 34
[2019] 10 SCR 381
relied on
Para 35
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 13181322 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2020 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 138/2020, CWPOA No.
3601/2019, CWPOA No. 3633/2019, CWPOA No. 6534/2019, CWPOA
No. 6252/2020.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1323-1324 of 2021 and Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 1028 of 2020
Vikas Mahajan, AAG, Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kaveeta
Wadia, Rohit Prasad, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha
Vij, Vinod Sharma, Binod Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar, Rahul Sateeja,
Prabhas Bajaj, Samir Ali Khan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel, the appeals and petition
were heard finally.
2. Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and
Electronics Engineering is technically a higher qualification than a diploma
in that discipline and, whether degree holders are eligible for appointment
to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment
rules, is the issue that falls for decision in these appeals arising out of a
common judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court1. As is evident,
this issue is not novel and has an almost endemic tendency requiring
judicial attention, albeit in myriad and diverse contexts.
3. The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection commission ("HPSSC"
hereafter), acting on the requisition sent by the Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board Ltd., ("HPSEB" hereafter) advertised 222 posts of
Junior Engineer (Electrical- hereafter referred to as "JE") on 27.06.2018.
Degree-holders in the concerned discipline applied for the post; after
qualifying the written examination, they were called for verification of
documents but the final result was not declared. They approached the
High Court in writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed
educational qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum
(and advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration.
The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argued that that the
qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor can
be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the basis of the
advertisement issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection
Commission. The HPSEB adopted a neutral position; however, it
highlighted that per the applicable regulations, the minimum essential
qualification provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.)
was "matriculation with Diploma in Electrical/ Electronics/
Electronics and Communication/ Computer Science from the
recognized Institution/ Board/University duly recognized by the
Central or State Government". HPSEB further stated that the HPSSC
could not traverse beyond the regulations, and was bound to make
recruitments in accordance with them. The HPSSC, which issued the
1 In CWP No. 138/2020, CWPOA No. 3601/2019 and CWPOA No. 3633/2019 filed by
the degree-holders (hereafter 'degree-holders') claiming the right of consideration, and
CWPOA No. 6534/2019 and CWPOA No. 6252/2020 have been filed by the
diploma-holders ("diploma-holder") opposing the claim of the degree-holders.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
advertisement and conducted the selection, opposed the petitions and
asserted that degree holders could not be considered for recruitment.
4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court considered the
parties' submissions, the position in the recruitment rules, and various
decisions of this court2 besides its own decisions3, and concluded that:
"40. It would be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that normal rule would be that candidate
with higher qualification is deemed to be fulfilled the lower
qualification prescribed for the post. But that higher
qualification has to be in the same channel, which is not the
position in the present case. Therefore, the guiding factor
while considering the case of higher qualification is that it
must be in the same line. The degree in engineering is not in
the same line as diploma in engineering and it, therefore,
cannot be considered to be a higher qualification.
41. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, a
Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering are two
distinct qualifications and a degree in the field in question
cannot be viewed as a higher qualification when compared
to Diploma in that field.
Consequently, the degree holder petitioners cannot be
permitted to urge that they possess higher qualification which
would meet the requirement of specific qualifications specified
in the rules or advertisement.
42. In addition to the aforesaid, it would be noticed that the
respondent- Electricity Board has itself not considered the
degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical & Electronics
Engineering to be superior to the diploma and rather treated
2 Jyoti KK v Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) 15 SCC 596; State of Uttarakhand
and others vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557; State of Punjab
v Anita {(2015) 2 SCC 170} Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v State of Jammu and Kashmir
&Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 Zahoor Ahmad Rather v Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad {(2019) 2
SCC 404; Maharashtra Public Service Commission, v Sandeep Shriram Warade&ors
2019 (6) SCC 362; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Kochi &Ors v Aaraya
K. Babu &Anr (2019) 8 SCC 587
3 Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission &Ors v Pawan Thakur 2019 (3) Shim.
L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v State of HP & ors (CWP No. 161/2019); AvinashKoundal
v Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No. 1155/2020)
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
these to be two separate and distinct qualifications and that
is why it vide notification dated 03.06.2020 has amended the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior
Engineer (Electrical/Junior Engineer (IT) Class -III (NonGazetted) in the following manner...."
Arguments of the degree holders
5. Ms. Kavita Wadia, appearing for the degree holder appellants,
contended that the expression "minimum"4 was deliberately used without
any bar under the rules and did not prevent appointment of degree holders
to the post of JE (Elect.) in HPSEB, and that diploma was only a minimum
requirement. This, she argued is established beyond doubt from Clause
11 of the Rules for appointment to higher promotional post of Assistant
Engineers (Elect.) where under 5% quota is provided for those who
possessing degree at the time of their appointment as JE (Elect.) and
5% separately for those who acquired degree during their service as JE
(Elect.) after their confirmation. She relies on the decision of this court
in Govt of A.P. vs P. Dalip Kumar5 which held that the expression
'minimum' entitles the employer to choose a person with higher
qualification. A minimum acts as a cut-off filter for the same, and does
not debar recruitment of higher qualified candidates.
6. Ms. Wadia submits that the arguments of diploma holders, i.e.
that the "with" in the rules, is disjunctive (in column 7) - while providing
that the qualification stipulated would be "Minimum Matriculation with
diploma in electrical engineering/electrical & Electronics
Engineering ..."-defies logic because if 'with' were disjunctive and
expression 'minimum' was used for making matriculation as a minimum
educational requirement, then there was no need to use the expression
"minimum" since to pursue the diploma course a candidate has to have
passed matriculation as is reflected in the requirements for admission to
diploma courses in prospectuses of government colleges. In other words,
4 Occurring in the rules, (The HPSEB amendments in Column - 2, 7 & 10 of the
Recruitment and Promotion regulations to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.) Notified
by notification No. HPSEC (SECTT) R&E/106-10/2006-93342-562 dated 13.12.2006
and further amended by Notificaiton No. HPSEC (SECTT)R&E/106-10/2010-22792991 dated 25.05.2010) which read as follows:
"Minimum matriculation with diploma in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronics Engineering from a recognized institution/ Board University duly
recognized by the Central/State Government for JE (Elect.) post."
5 1993(2)SCC 310 (Ref. Para 13 and 15)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
contends Ms. Wadia, the minimum qualification would only be
matriculation in that case, defeating the purpose of the rule, which is
that those diploma holders with matriculation would be considered as
possessing the minimum or threshold qualification. It is submitted that
"minimum" was intentionally used without any bar under the Rules
concerning the appointment of degree holders to the Post of JE (Elect.)
in HPSEB, making diploma as only a minimum requirement. This is
established beyond doubt from Clause 11 of the Rules for appointment
to higher promotional post of Assistant Engineers (Elect). The expression
'minimum' entitles the employer to choose a person with higher
qualification as 'minimum' acts as a cut off filter for the same and does
not debar recruitment of those who are higher qualified.
7. It is also argued that the term "with" in Clause 7, (reproduced
above) is adjunctive in the said group of words, since it adds to the
meaning of a sentence but when removed, makes no harm to its grammar.
As a noun, an adjunctive joins two components of same weight such as
co-ordinating conjunctions. It is further urged that, the decision in A.K
Raghumani Singh & ors v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors6 is inapplicable
since the issue there was whether experience required with the
qualification equivalent to degree was subsequent to attaining the degree
or prior to it. To have held that the experience was to be attained after
acquiring the degree would have led to "with" being read as "subsequent
to". Further, this court held that "with" has to be contextually interpreted
and was to be a disjunctive in the context of the said rule. It is argued,
that in the present case, if the term were to be interpreted contextually
to mean that the diploma would not be a minimum while matriculation
would be, - a construction that renders the expression 'minimum' useless,
for diploma cannot be pursued without matriculation and at the same
time renders otiose the co-related Clause 11(v). This is contrary to
purposive interpretation of the Rules, which ought to apply to gather the
intention of the lawmaker. The appellant relies on CHD V. Usha
Kheterpal Waie7 where this court observed that so long as the
qualification prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has
a rational nexus with the function and duties attached to the post, and
are not violative of the provisions of Constitution or the statute and Rules,
it must be upheld. Counsel submitted that the impugned judgment fell
into error in distinguishing, and not following Jyoti K.K8.
6 2000(4) SCC 30
7 2011 (9) SCC 645
8 Supra, note 2
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
8. It was lastly argued that the High Court erred in applying the
judgment of this court in Zahoor Ahmad (supra) since it pertained to
appointments to the Post of Technician III which is relatable more to
field jobs, and restricted the consideration of 'ITI' Certificate holders
for the said Post to the exclusion of diploma holders. In the present case,
the relevant post is a higher post of JE (Elect.) of which the promotional
post is that of AE (Elect.). Also, in Zahoor Ahmad (supra) no expression
viz "minimum" was used in the Rules and the same was mentioned in a
note in the advertisement therein, which was interpreted by this court. It
was lastly urged that it is not in dispute that the appointing authority
cannot defy the rules or make appointments and, or support a view
contrary to the governing and applicable rules. However, in the present
case the applicable rules ought to be read meaningfully, purposively and
in a way that is not destructive of the entire scheme and balance sought
to be maintained in the Rules, keeping in mind the needs of the posts and
the State as well as domiciles. It is submitted that the interpretation of
the earlier rules and the 2020 Rules in Para 40 to 42 of the impugned
order is destructive and does complete violence to the intent of the rule
makers.
9. On behalf of the contesting respondents, i.e. the diploma holders,
Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel requested this court not to
interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. It is submitted
that the expression "minimum" is used with the academic qualification,
i.e. matriculation and not the essential technical qualification, viz. a
diploma. A diploma in electrical engineering can be obtained after pursuing
a three years course. That should be preceded by a matriculation or
after completing a two years study- after 10thstandard in school.
Therefore, a candidate to be eligible should have obtained a diploma
after matriculation or after 10+2. This clearly eliminated degree holders
from the zone of eligibility.
10. It was argued that the use of "with" between minimum
"matriculation" and diploma operates as a disjunctive. It cannot be read
with the word diploma. It is submitted that only diploma holders such as
the contesting respondents could be considered for selection; their
selections were finalized on 02.09.2020 and the select list was prepared
by the Commission. Having fulfilled the eligibility conditions and after
getting selected through a valid and legal selection process, the entire
recruitment process was valid. Accordingly, such of the contesting
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
359
respondents who qualified in the exam and were successful deserved to
be appointed.
11. Learned counsel relied upon the relevant rules to submit that
direct recruitments are made to select category of posts by the Board,
i.e. the Sub-Station Attendant, Electrician and Lineman for whom the
essential educational qualifications are matriculation with ITI. For these
categories of posts, there was conscious change in the rules with effect
from 03.05.2018 when the words "or any other higher qualification
in the same trade" were deleted. Thus, from 03.05.2018 diploma holders
were ineligible for consideration for the post of Sub-Station Attendant,
Electrician and Lineman. Secondly, for the post of Junior Engineer
(Electrical), the essential qualification - which is under challenge, is
reserved only for diploma holders. Thirdly, direct recruitment is possible
for Assistant Engineers with regular/full time degree in electrical or
electronic engineering or AMIE or those with full time computer science
and electronics and electrical engineering or its equivalent. Therefore,
diploma holders cannot be directly recruited either in the lower grade of
Sub-Station Attendants with effect from 03.05.2018 or as Assistant
Engineers.
12. It is pointed out that 15 government polytechnic colleges offer
diploma courses in Himachal Pradesh whereas only three government
colleges offer degree courses in electrical engineering. The student intake
in the diploma course college is as much as 400, whereas the intake in
degree courses in electrical engineering in government colleges is 170
students. Keeping this in mind, if the degree holders were permitted to
compete with diploma holders, the latter would suffer severely and would
be disadvantaged.
13. It is submitted that a close look at the recruitment rules for the
HPSEB would further reveal that even in respect of higher posts of
Assistant Engineer, degree holders are entitled to 36% direct recruitment;
diploma holders are entitled to be promoted in a quota of 64%. The
relevant portions of the recruitment rules, it is submitted indicate the
following:
[(i) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station)/ Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/Junior
Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Junior
Engineer (Telephone)/Foreman in the trade concerned, who
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
are Diploma Holder with 7 years' service in the grade, to the
extent of 40%
(ii) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station)/ Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/ Junior
Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Junior
Engineer (Telephone)/ Foreman in the trade concerned, i.e.
persons who are ITI qualified having 12 years' service in the
trade.
(b) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station)/ Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/ Junior
Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Junior
Engineer (Telephone)/ Foreman in the trade concerned, i.e.
non - ITI holders with 15 years' service in the grade (a) + (b)
= 10%.
(iii) From amongst those persons who pass/acquire the
qualification of AMIE (Section A & B) or who acquire Full
time/Regular Degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science Engineering.
Electronics & Communication Engineering & Information
Technology in service after confirmation to service to the extent
of 5%.
(iv) Drawing Staff
Circle Head Draftsman with diploma in Electrical Engineering
or Diploma Certificate of draftsmanship from a recognized
institute with 5 year service in the grade having which 10
years' service as Draftsman/ Circle Head Draughtsman and
with combined 15 years' service in the Draftsman Cadre: 4%
(v) Before joining the service as JE who possess Regular/
Full time degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronic Engineering/ Computer Sciences Engineering
Electronics and Communication Engineering & Information
Technology from a recognised University approved by AICTE,
Ex Servicemen who have the relevant qualification
equivalence to a recognised degree in Electrical Engineering
or Electrical & Electronic Engineering stream/ discipline
recognized by Govt of India or person who possess AMIE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
qualification in above stream/ discipline from Institute of
Engineers (India Calcutta) after confirmation of service =
5%.]
14. It is submitted that the break-up of promotional quota shown
with that of the total promotional quota show that 59% is clearly set out
for diploma holders and those Junior Engineers having a degree, can
apply in the 5% quota. This also implies that some degree holders can be
appointed provided they also had a diploma. Reliance is placed upon
certain extracts of a seniority list, setting out names of nine individuals,
who have both diploma and B. Tech /AMIE qualifications. It is submitted
that such individuals were recruited not on the basis of degree
qualifications but rather because they held the requisite diploma
qualifications.
15. It is submitted furthermore that there is nothing in the
recruitment rules, either express or implied, which permitted the state
authorities to consider and process the candidature of those possessing
degrees in electrical engineering but not possessing diploma. It is
submitted that the impugned judgment quite correctly surmised that the
decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) was no longer a binding authority in view
of the later judgment of this Court in Anita (supra) and Zahoor Ahmad
Rather (supra). Those decisions held that the prescription of a minimum
qualification does not (absent given compelling circumstances) permit
candidates possessing higher qualifications in the discipline, to apply and
be considered for appointment.
16. The HPSEB submits that the rule in question should be so
interpreted and applied to permit degree holders a chance at selection. It
is submitted that any interpretation of rules to exclude better qualified
persons is irrational and robs the employer the chance of choosing a
better qualified candidate. It is also argued that the post of Junior Engineer
(Electrical) is technical and public interest demands that the interpretation
of the rule extends consideration to someone holding degree.
17. Counsel for the HSEB argued that it is the inherent right of
the employer to seek out better qualified individuals for public appointment;
furthermore equivalence of qualification is not a matter for the courts to
determine. HSEB argued that the High Court in the present case decided
that a degree is not a better qualification than a diploma, without any
expert view and contrary to settled law. It further argued that the
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
notification dated 03.06.2020 is an outcome of an attempt to rationalize
the recruitment norms throughout the State Government for technical
posts in all departments and is an outcome of an exercise beginning in
the year 2019 and has nothing to do with the present litigation, and that
notification is applicable prospectively. It cannot, at any rate be challenged
before this court for the first time merely on the ground that an erroneous
interpretation has been taken qua the said notification by the High Court.
Analysis and Conclusions:
18. The relevant rules stipulating essential qualifications for the
post of JE, were framed and brought into force on 13.12.2006; they
repealed the then existing rules framed by HPSEB in 1996. The
notification to the extent it is relevant is extracted below:
19. On 12.01.2007, the All-India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) prescribed that a student acquires a diploma in Engineering
through a minimum of 3 years of institutional study (after 10+2 Secondary
Examination). Diploma holders were to be academically equivalent to
students who passed the first year of the 4 year engineering degree
programme. On 24.05.2010 by Clause 11 the Recruitment and Promotion
Regulations applicable to HPSEB were amended; they provided for
essential qualifications for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
363
(Electrical) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Effective from
21.06.2012, the rules of recruitment and regulations were amended- inter
alia, to the cadre of Assistant Engineer, by HPSEB providing two distinct
quotas in the promotion quota (from amongst serving Junior Engineers).
The existing quota of 6% available to those who acquired AMIE/Degree
in Electrical Engineering qualifications etc. in service with minimum one
years' regular service after confirmation was reduced to 5% quota by
the amendment. In addition, the promotional quota to the post of Assistant
Engineer, from the cadre of Junior Engineers (with which the present
dispute is concerned) was to the extent of 5% eligible for consideration.
This quota was specifically identified as those who had completed their
engineering degree "before joining the service of Junior Engineer."
The relevant extract of amendments- of 2012 are set out below:
"ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E)
COL. 7 (Direct Recruitment)
Minimum educational and other qualification required for
direct recruits.
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E)
Col. No. 11 (iii) (iv) & (v)
In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer,
grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made.
Note: other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged.
These amendments will be applicable with immediate effects.
20. By the advertisement in question, HPSEB invited applications
for direct recruitment to 222 vacancies in the cadre of JE (Electrical).
Several candidates including the present appellants (who are degree
holders) applied. They were allowed to participate in the written test
and many of them were even called for an interview and verification of
documents - sometime in April 2019. When matters stood thus, diploma
holders preferred an application9 before the State Administrative
Tribunal. By order dated 21.12.2018 the tribunal interdicted the
recruitment process. As there was some conflict and confusion with
respect to the interpretation of the rules on the question i.e. whether
Existing Provision
Amended Provisions
(iii) from amongst those persons who pass/acquire
the qualification of AMIE/Degree in Electrical
Engineering/ Electrical & Electronic Engineering/
Computer Science Engineering, Electronic &
Communication
Engineering
&
Information
Technology in Service having minimum one year
regular service after confirmation to service
= 6%
(iii) from amongst those persons who pass/acquire the
qualification of AMIE (Section A & B) or who acquire
Full time/ Regular Degree in Electrical Engineering/
Electrical &Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science
Engineering.
Electronics
&
Communication
Engineering & Information Technology in service after
confirmation to service. = 5%
(iv) Drawing Staff:
Circle Head Draftsman possessing Diploma in
Elect. Engineering or Diploma Certificate of
Draftsmanship from a recognized Institute having
5 years' service in the grade failing which 10
years'
service
as
Draftsman/Head
Draughtsman/Circle
Head
Draughtsman
and
failing both total 15 years services in the
Draftsman cadre. = 3 %
(iv) Drawing Staff:
Circle Head Draftsman possessing Diploma in Elect.
Engineering or Diploma Certificate of Draftsmanship
from a recognized Institute having 5 years' service in
the grade failing which 10 years' service as
Draftsman/Head
Draughtsman/Circle
Head
Draughtsman and failing both total 15 years services in
the Draftsman cadre. = 4%
(v) Before joining the service as JE who possess
degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronic
Engineering/
Computer
Science
Engineering.
Electronics
&
Communication
Engineering & Information Technology from a
recognized university including AMIE & having
minimum one year regular service in the cadre of
JE after confirmation in the service. =5%
(v) Before joining the services as JE who possess
Regular/ Full time degree in Electrical Engineering/
Electrical & Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science
Engineering. Electronics & Communication Engineering
& Information Technology from a recognized university
approved by the AICTE. Ex-servicemen who have the
relevant qualification equivalence to a recognized
Degree in Electrical Engineering or Electrical &
Electronic Engineering Stream/ discipline recognized by
the Govt. of India or person who posses AMIE
qualification in above stream/ discipline from Institute
or Engineers (India Calcutta) after confirmation to
service. =5%
9 O.A. 7397 of 2018
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
365
degree holders could compete for the post of Junior Engineer, other writ
petitions were preferred. The High Court10 constituted an expert
committee to examine all issues of equivalence of academic/technical
qualification and also whether persons possessing equal qualifications
were eligible for the advertised post. The committee by this report dated
15.06.2019; influenced by this Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra)
expressed the opinion that candidates possessing higher qualifications
were not eligible for consideration. Other writ petitions too were preferred
before the High Court.
21. During pendency of the litigation, on 03.06.2020, the HPSEB
further amended the Rules inserting a provision enabling candidates with
a minimum matriculation with diploma in Computer Science Engineering
or Electronic & Communication Engineering as well as those with
degrees. The amendment reads as follows:
"Diploma or degree in Computer Science Engineering or
ElectronicEngineering & Communication Engineering or
Information Technology from recognised Institute/ University
established by Law by the State/ Central Govt. OR AMIE from
Institution of Engineers (India) (only those candidates who
are enrolled for AMIE with the Institute of Engineers (India)
Kolkata will be permanent recognition up to 3105.2013)
would be eligible."
After taking into account the submission of the parties, the High
Court by the impugned judgment, endorsed the opinion of the committee
and was of the view that only those with matriculation and holding diploma
in the relevant subject are considered eligible for the post of Junior
Engineer. In W.P (C) 1028/2020, the Petitioners argue that the notification
of 03.06.2020 is arbitrary as it is prospective; in the alternative, they
claim that it should be read as clarificatory and therefore always applicable.
22. The question whether the stipulation or prescription of the
particular academic qualification excludes an applicant who possesses
what is termed as a higher qualification, from their candidature to the
concerned post has often arisen for consideration by this Court. In P.M.
Latha & Anr. v. State Of Kerala & Ors.11, the issue which arose for
consideration was whether, for primary class teachers, the prescribed
10 By an order dated 21.05.2019
11 (2003) 3 SCC 541
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
(and advertised) qualification Trained Teacher Certificates (TTC),
included those who held B.Ed. degrees. This court was forthright in
holding that the B.Ed. qualification could not be considered as a higher
qualification than the TTC and that the TTC qualification was "given to
teachers especially trained to teach small children "primary classes",
whereas those with B.Ed. were trained to impart education to students
of "higher classes". A similar view was expressed in Yogesh Kumar
& ors v. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors12 vis-a-vis the same
stipulation i.e., B.Ed. and TTC qualifications. The Court further held in
Yogesh Kumar (supra) that "a specialized training given to teachers
for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared
with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree."
23. The next judgment is Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public
Service Commission & Ors.13, where the issue was whether degree
holders could be considered for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in
the Kerala State Electricity Board, which had prescribed diploma in
Electrical Engineering or SSLC or its equivalent as the eligibility criteria.
This Court took into consideration Rule 10A and inter alia observed as
follows:
"6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
"10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules
or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by
executive orders or standing orders of Government as
equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special
Rules and such of those higher qualifications which
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification
prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post."
7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a
qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the
same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different
qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also
justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly
indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that
part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher
12 (2003) 3 SCC 548
13 (2010) 15 SCC 596
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
367
qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient
for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications
in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated
to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications
prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary
to seek far.
8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer,
degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other
equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has
been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment
has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained,
obviously gives an indication that such qualification is
definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the
lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of
the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering
presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of
diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be
considered to be sufficient for that post.
9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diplomaholders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineers but
not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this
Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who
possess higher qualifications or the position should have
been made clear that degree-holder shall not be eligible to
apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on
the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders
of higher qualifications in the same Faculty, it becomes clear
that the Rule could be understood in an appropriate manner
as stated above. In that view of the matter the order [Jyothi
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, Original Petition
No. 9602 of 1998, order dated 30-3-2000 (Ker)] of the High
Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned
with the question whether all those who possess such
qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory Rules
have been published and those Rules are applicable, it
presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments
will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware of the
Rules before making appropriate applications. The High
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment
of the appellants would amount to fraud on the public."
24. It is evident therefore, that this Court was of the opinion that
for the post of Sub-Engineer (which can be termed as comparable to the
post of Junior Engineer in the present case), the Kerala State Electricity
Board felt that those possessing degree as well could be considered.
This Court upheld the contention.
25. In Anita (supra) this court was concerned with JBT teachers,
where the minimum qualification was two years' junior basic teachers'
training. Those with MSc, B.Ed. and MA qualifications were held ineligible,
looking at the nature of the job i.e. teaching primary classes. Jyoti (supra)
was distinguished because the appointing authority had the option of
considering appointment of persons with higher qualifications.
26. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) the post in question was
"Technician-III" in the Power Development Department in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant stipulation with respect to
qualification was "Matric with ITI in the relevant trade." The
appellants held diploma in Electrical Engineering and were included in
the list of disqualified candidates. This resulted in litigation which ultimately
culminated in the judgment of this court.