PUNEET SHARMA ETC & Ors. v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY

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. A B C D E F G H 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H 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. PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 355 advertisement and conducted the selection, opposed the petitions and asserted that degree holders could not be considered for recruitment. A

#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) B C D E F G H 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H 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 (Non- Gazetted) 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/106-10/2010-22792- 991 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) PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 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 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 PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 359 respondents who qualified in the exam and were successful deserved to be appointed. A

#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 B C D E F G H 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H 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 PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 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 A B C D E F G H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H 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 PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 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. A B C D E F G H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E) Col. No. 11 (iii) (iv) & (v) B C D E F G In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made. 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% (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 Draftsman/Head years’ Draughtsman/Circle Head Draughtsman and failing both Draftsman cadre. = 3 % (v) Before joining the service as JE who possess degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical & Science Electronic Engineering/ Computer 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% total 15 years services service (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. Communication Engineering & Information Technology in service after confirmation to service. = 5% Electronics & (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 failing which 10 years’ service as the grade Head Draughtsman/Circle Draftsman/Head Draughtsman and failing both total 15 years services in the Draftsman cadre. = 4% (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% 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 H 9 O.A. 7397 of 2018 PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 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 A B C D E F G H 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H (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