UT OF J&K & Ors. v. SHAFAQUAT ARA

regularization/confirmation of the officers of Technical Education Department (Polytechnic sector) on the post of Principal retrospectively after approval from the DPC/PSC on the basis of Agenda Note governed as per Schedule-I appended to the Rules of 2022 issued vide SRO 328 of 2002 dated 28.08.2022. It had been further averred in the objections that respondent does not qualify the method of recruitment required for the post of Principal. She did not possess the degree in Engineering or equivalent. 7) After the promulgation of J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, aforesaid writ petition filed by the respondent was transferred to the Tribunal, wherein it was registered as TA No.2468/2021. The Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide impugned order dated 14th February, 2023 allowed the TA with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the respondent herein in terms of prayer (II) of the T.A and pass necessary orders in this regard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is WP(C) No.2775/2023 this order which is under challenge before us in the present writ petition. 8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is legally flawed and is not sustainable in law. The impugned order is premised on a wrong understanding of law. The only question that was required to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal and arises before us for determination is as under: “Whether the respondent is eligible to be appointed selection as Principal Polytechnic under the Rules of 2002.” 9) Before we appreciate the rival contentions made on the issue, we deem it appropriate to set out the rule position as is obtaining from the Rules of 2002. The post of Principal born on Technical Education Gazetted Service figures at serial No.2 and Class II of Schedule–II- A of the Rules of 2002. The minimum qualification and the method of recruitment for the post as laid down in Schedule-II-A reads as under: “By selection from Class III categories A & B possessing minimum qualification of degree in Engineering or equivalent with 5 years experience as such. WP(C) No.2775/2023 Candidate with master‟s degree Engineering/Technical Education equivalent shall be given preference.” 10) From a plain reading of “method of recruitment” as quoted above, it clearly transpires that a person can be appointed as a Principal by selection from feeding categories i.e. Category A Lecturer- I/foreman (Engineering) and Category B Lecturer-I (Non-engineering) and the minimum qualification prescribed is degree in Engineering or equivalent with five years’ experience in the respective categories. There is also preference given to the candidates possessing Master’s degree in Engineering/Technical Education or equivalent. 11) Class IV Categories A & B, as it exists in Schedule- II-A, also deserves reproduction hereunder: Class Category Grade Designation Min. qualification for D.R. Method of recruitment S. No 4 IV A 8000- 12950 Lecturer- I/Foreman (Engineering) degree Bachelor’s Engineering with 55% appropriate branch Engineering/Technology/d equivalent iscipline or recognized a University. (i)50% by direct recruitment. qualification in Engineering a (ii)50% by promotion Class-V category A with 5 years that category experience possessing degree equivalent respective recognized branch University or 3 years diploma with 60% marks in appropriate branch of Engineering from a recognized Board/Institute. WP(C) No.2775/2023 In case suitable candidates from the category of Lecturer-II are the candidates category not available, demonstrators/Drawing Instructor, Technical J&K Education (Subordinate Service Polytechnic) with 6 years experience the Degree holders and 8 years experience for Diploma holders with minimum 60% marks shall be considered for promotion. By promotion from Class V category B having 5 years experience in that category. B 8000- 12950 Lecturer- I/Non Engg. -do- 12) Having set out the relevant extract of Schedule-II-A (supra), let us no proceed to examine the case of the respondent as was set up before the Tribunal. 13) Indisputably and as is also claimed by the respondent, she is Graduate in Home Science with 56% marks. She also possesses Master’s degree in Food Science (Food and Nutrition) from the University of Kashmir, which she was awarded in the year 1996. Pursuant to the recommendations of the then State Public Service Commission, respondent was appointed as Lecturer-I in Food Technology in the pay scale of Rs.8000-12950 (pre-revised) vide Government Order No.180-Edu (Tech) of 2004 dated 10.08.2004. After putting in nearly seven years’ service as Lecturer-I, the respondent was made I/C Head of the Department Food Technology vide Government Order No.108-Edu (Tech) of 2011 dated 22.07.2011. She was confirmed as Head of WP(C) No.2775/2023 Department Food Technology recommendations of DPC/PSC with effect from 22nd July, 2011, as is borne from Government Order No.141-Edu (Tech) of 2013 dated 07.08.2013. The respondent also claimed that she held the charge of Principal at Government Polytechnics, Bandipora, Budgam and Government Women Polytechnic, Srinagar. The short grievance that was projected by the respondent before the Tribunal was that has more than five years of experience as HOD and possesses qualification equivalent to degree of Engineering and, therefore, fulfills all the eligibility requirements for appointment as Principal by selection in terms of the Rules of 2002. 14) SWP/TA filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioners herein who took the plea that the respondent herein does not possess either the degree in Engineering or any other qualification equivalent thereto. She is Graduate in Home Science and has also done her Post-graduation in Home Science (Food & Nutrition) and PG Diploma in Fruit & Vegetable Preservation and such qualifications are not equivalent to the qualification prescribed the Rules of 2002 i.e. degree Engineering. It was, thus, pleaded before the Tribunal that simply because the respondent was put as I/C WP(C) No.2775/2023 Principal in various Polytechnics in the exigency of service does not clothe her with the eligibility, which she completely lacks. 15) Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the Bachelor’s degree in Engineering nor does she possesses a qualification which could be said to be equivalent to the degree in Engineering. The degree in Engineering is a technical degree, primarily focused on engineering disciplines, such as Mechanical, Electrical, Civil or Computer Engineering. It prepares students with the skills and knowledge required for Engineering profession, involving math, physic and specific technical expertise whereas the Bachelor of Sciencein Home Science (B.Sc. Home Science) focuses on the tropics related to family and community Sciences including nutrition, human development, resource management and textiles. It combines scientific and social aspects to improve quality of life and typically leads to careers in areas like nutrition, education, family, counseling or community development.Even the degree in Food Technology would not qualify to be a degree in Engineering. The degree equivalent to Graduation in Engineering could possibly be B.Tech in various branches of Engineering, AMIE A&B and similar other qualifications with their specific focus WP(C) No.2775/2023 on Engineering and technical disciplines. AICTE is a regulatory body to ensure the minimum standards, proper planning and coordinated development of technical education system throughout the Country. The technical education, as defined in Section 2(g) of AICTE Act, 1987, means programme of education, research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the official Gazette, declare. Generally speaking, the Engineering Courses are such courses which can only be conducted by the institutions which are approved for running such courses by All India Council for Technical Education and the courses are technical courses in Technical Education as defined in the Rules of 2002. 16) Apart from above, the question of equivalence of two degrees is a matter for the experts to decide and is, therefore, outside the domain of the Courts. The expert bodies like University Grant Commission, Public Service Commission or the Equivalence Committee of recognized Universities may arrive at a finding that the two degrees under reference are equivalent. In the absence of any WP(C) No.2775/2023 such expertise with the Courts and in the absence of any ambiguity and perceived unfairness in degree equivalency in degrees, the court would prefer to keep its hands off from such determination. 17) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610, has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. It is apt to refer para 15 of the judgment as under: academic “15. The first respondent has passed his MA (OUS) Annamalai University throughdistance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the MA appellant University has (English) (OUS) distance Annamalai University through education equivalent appellant University. Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility appellant University for criterion admission to the three year law course.” recognised to MA 18) Again, in Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404, the Hon’ble Apex Court ha held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the WP(C) No.2775/2023 aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualifications. Equivalence of qualification is a matter of State, as recruiting authority, to determine. 19) We have Standing Committee on equivalence of degrees/qualifications constituted by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir vide Government Order No.1384- GAD of 2018 dated 12th September, 2018. We are told that similar committees are in existence in the recognized Universities of State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the absence of any material on record in the shape of information of expert bodies like the University of Jammu and University of Kashmir or the Government of Jammu and Kashmir declaring the Graduation in Home Science equivalent to Graduation in Engineering, we cannot rule that the qualification of Graduation in Home Science/PG in Home Science held by the respondent is equivalent to the degree in Engineering so as to be eligible for appointment for selection as Principal of Government Polytechnic under the Rules of 2002. WP(C) No.2775/2023 20) We are aware that notwithstanding the settled legal position that question of equivalency of two qualifications must ordinarily be the expert/educational regulatory bodies like Universities, UGCs, AICTE etc. However, we hasten to add that the jurisdiction of this Court in such academic matters, particularly the matters dealing with degree equivalency, are not immune from examination by the Court. This court could not hesitate to intervene if the guidelines provided for determining the equivalency of two qualifications are ambiguous or ex- inconsistent or that the equivalency of two qualifications provided on the face of it is arbitrary, unfair and tailor-made to suit a particular person or class of persons. There could be other occasions that the courts of law may be called upon to intervene in such academic matters. However, the present case does not present any such situation. Going by the plain language of the relevant rule and in the absence of any material to the contrary, we have no option but to go with the opinion of the petitioners that the qualification possessed by the respondent i.e. Graduation in Home Science is nowhere equivalent to degree in Engineering. We see a lot of logic and reasoning in such opinion. We are told that Draft Amendment Rules for the Department of Technical WP(C) No.2775/2023 Education are at the stage of being finalized. Having regard to the needs and requirements of the job in the department, it is for the employer to prescribe a particular qualification for a particular post. At this stage when nothing is before us and the rules are yet to be finalized, we restrain ourselves from making any comments. 21) The Tribunal has not examined the case in its correct perspective and has steered away from the main controversy. The Tribunal was called upon to pronounce upon the eligibility or otherwise of the respondent and, therefore, ought not to have embarked upon a journey to an unchartered territory. 22) For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Srinagar, 25.11.2024 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes WP(C) No.2775/2023