Ashok Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy

He has adverted to the Certificate of Associateship Examination issued by the aforesaid institution as Annexure - 12 to the writ petition. He has also adverted to the Certificate issued by the Institute of Town Planners, India to indicate that petitioner has Associate Membership of the aforesaid Institute. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to a document appended as Annexure - 5 to the writ petition which is a counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 64 (SB) of 2009 to submit that the degree of Associateship Examination and Associate Membership of the Institute of Town Planners, India has been indicated as equivalent to Master's Degree in Planning as per letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

5. He has also adverted to the aforesaid letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (Annexure - 13 to the writ petition) which certifies that Associateship Examination conducted by the Institute of Town Planners is equivalent to a Master's Degree in Planning. He has also adverted to Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Scientific Research & Culture Affairs dated 04.04.1963 to submit that the aforesaid Associateship Examination of the Institute of Town 3 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 Planners, India has been recognized for purposes of recruitment to superior posts and services under the Central Government in the field of Town Planning.

6. It is thus submitted that petitioner's Associate Membership with the Institute of Town Planners being equivalent to a Master's Degree in Engineering, petitioner has the requisite qualification for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner.

7. Learned counsel has also adverted to a combined seniority list dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure - 15 to the writ petition) to submit that petitioner's name has been indicated at Sl. No. 3 with the opposite party No.4 being indicated at Sl. No. 10 of the combined seniority list. It is therefore submitted that since petitioner clearly has essential qualification required for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner and is also senior to opposite party No.4, it was required that he should have been given preference for providing officiating charge on the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP).

8. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the promotion orders dated 08.06.2001 and 18.12.2012 (collectively filed as Annexure - 6 to the writ petition) to submit that in the case of one Smt. Yashodhara Jain, substantive appointment was provided to her on the post of Senior Planner. He laid emphasis on paragraph - 14 of the writ petition to submit that the aforesaid lady has the same qualification as that of petitioner and has been taken as adequate qualifications for substantive recruitment on the post of Senior Planner.

9. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that Rule - 5 of the aforesaid Rules clearly indicates the aspect that the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP) is required to be filled up by promotion from amongst Senior Planners who have put in atleast 5 years as such and the post of Senior Planner requires promotion from amongst permanent Town Planners, Associate Planners, Architect Planners, Senior Architects and Executive Engineers holding a degree in Civil Engineering who possess qualification prescribed in Appendix 'B'. He has thereafter referred to Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Rules to submit that degree 4 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 or post-graduate diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized institution is an essential qualification for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner. It is submitted that since admittedly petitioner does not possess the aforesaid degree or post-graduate diploma, there was no question of providing him with officiating charge of the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP) while opposite party No.4 fulfilling aforesaid essential qualifications has been provided officiating charge of the said post. It is further submitted that once the essential qualifications as indicated in Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Rules do not prescribe for any equivalence, the same cannot be considered.

10. With regard to counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 64 (SB) of 2009, it is submitted that there cannot be any estopple against Statute and in case incorrect stand has been taken by the State Government earlier, it cannot be taken as a precedent.

11. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the fact that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 31.12.2008 for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner and petitioner's name was rejected primarily on the ground that he did not possess the academic essential qualification required for the said post. It is submitted that neither the aforesaid recommendation nor the orders pursuant thereof have ever been challenged by the petitioner.

12. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance of D.P.C. held on 31.12.2008, no order rejecting petitioner's candidature was ever passed and on objections being raised by him, a revised D.P.C. was thereafter constituted on 14.07.2009.

13. Learned counsel for opposite party No.4 while adopting the submissions advanced by learned State Counsel has elaborated upon the same and has drawn attention to Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Rules to submit that while the post of Senior Planner does not contemplate any equivalence regarding academic qualification, the said equivalence has been clearly indicated for recruitment on the post of Assistant Town Planner/ Assistant Planner/ Personal Assistant (Technical). It is therefore submitted that the Rule Making 5 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 Authority has clearly indicated the distinction with regard recruitment on the post of Senior Planner and Assistant Planner whereby equivalence has been specifically provided for the latter but not in the case of former. He has cited the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV and others v. Union of India and others [(2023) 18 SCC 546] to submit that where the rule itself does not prescribe any equivalence, the Courts cannot supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies.

14. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, the aspect requiring consideration is whether the petitioner possesses the essential academic qualification required for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner?

15. As has been discussed here-in-above, while learned counsel for parties admit that Rules of 1987 are applicable upon the aforesaid post for purposes of recruitment, it is the interpretation with regard to Appendix 'B' which will require consideration.

16. Relevant provisions of Rules of 1987 are as follows:- "5. (1) Recruitment the various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the source given below: Name of post Source of recruitment (1) Chief Town and Country Planner By promotion from amongst Senior Planners who have put in atleast 5 years of service as such. (2) Senior Planner from amongst permanent By promotion Town Planners, Associate Planners, Senior Architects and Executive Engineers (holding degree in Civil Engineering who posses the qualification prescribed in Appendix 'B' for the post of Senior Planner and who have put in at least 7 years of service on a gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. 6 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 (3) Town Planners/ By promotion from amongst permanent Associates Planner Assistant Town Planners/ Assistant Planners/Personal Assistants (Technical), Assistant Architects and Assistant Engineers who possess the qualifications prescribed in appendix 'B' for Town Planners/Associate Planer who have put in atleast 7 years of service on a gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. (4) Senior Architect By promotion amongst the permanent (5) Architect Planner Assistant Town Planners/Assistant Planners, Personal Assistant (Technical) and Assistant Architects who possess the qualifications prescribed in appendix 'B' for the post of Senior Architect and who have put in atleast 7 years of service on a gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. By promotion from amongst the permanent Assistant Town Planners/Assistant Planners/ Personal Assistant (Technical), Assistant Architects and Assistant Engineers who possess appendix 'B' for Architect Planner and who put in atleast 7 years of service on gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. the qualification prescribed (6) Executive Engineer By promotion from amongst the permanent Assistant Town Planners/Assistant Planners/ Personal Assistant (Technical), Assistant Architects and Assistant Engineers who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Executive Engineer in appendix 'B' and have put in 7 years of service on gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 7 APPENDIX ‘B’ Serial Name of post Academic Qualifications and Experience no.

1. Senior Planner

1. Degree or post graduate Diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized Institution.

2. Corporate membership of atleast one of the following Institutions – (a) Institution of Town Planners (India) (b) American Institute of Town Planners (c) Institute of Town Planners (London)

2. Town Planner/

1. Degree or post graduate Diploma in Town Associate Planner and Country Planning from a recognized Institution.

2. At least 3 years’ experience in the Town and Regional Planning after obtaining the requisite Degree or Diploma.

3. Senior Architect

1. Degree in Architecture with special paper in Town Planning from a recognized Institution.

4. Architect Planner 1. Degree or post graduate Diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized Institution.

2. Degree in Architecture from a recognized Institution.

5. Executive

1. Degree in Civil Engineering from a Engineer recognized Institution University or an equivalent qualification.

6. Assistant Planner/ 1. Degree or Post graduate Diploma in Town 8 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 Assistant Town and Country Planning from a recognized Planner/ Personal Institution. Assistant (Technical) OR Associate Membership of atleast one of the following Institutions: (a) Institute of Town Planners (India) (b) American Institute of Town Planners (c) Institute of Town Planners (London) OR Equivalent qualifications recognized by the Institute of Town Planners, India, London, American as an equivalent to its membership. Preferential Degree in Architecture or Civil Engineering or an equivalent qualification.

17. From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule 5 juxtaposed with Appendix 'B', it is thus evident that for substantive recruitment on the post of Senior Planner, a degree or post-graduate diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized Institution is an essential qualification.

18. While learned counsel for petitioner has admitted that petitioner does not have the aforesaid requisite qualification but has adverted to the letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the All India Council for that Associateship Technical Education Examination conducted by the Institute of Town Planners, India is to submit (AICTE) equivalent to Master's Degree in Planning.

19. It is thus the case of petitioner that even though he may not possess the essential qualification for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner but his qualifications have been held to be equivalent to that of the essential qualification required. 9 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025

20. With regard to such submission, a perusal of Appendix 'B' will make it evident that there is serious difference with regard to academic qualifications required for the post of Senior Planner and that of Assistant Planner/Assistant Town Planner/Personal Assistant (Technical) with the letter prescribing equivalent qualifications to the essential academic qualification required for recruitment on the said post. The aspect of equivalence is missing with regard to academic qualifications required for the post of Senior Planner.

21. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the Service Rules do not prescribe any equivalence with regard to essential academic qualifications, it is not for this Court to interpret the same in a manner which would obviate the very purpose of essential academic qualifications. In case equivalence is held to be read for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner, it will amount to incorporation of a condition which has been specifically omitted by the Rule Making Authority in its wisdom. It is settled law that such an incorporation can be made only in case the provisions are ambiguous. In the present case, there being no ambiguity this Court does not find it appropriate to incorporate words in the Rules which have been specifically omitted as has been held in the case of All Kerala Parents Association vs State of Kerala [(2018) 2 SCC 410].

22. The aforesaid aspect has been clearly enunciated by Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV and others (supra) in the following manner:- "12. In this background, the qualification as prescribed in column No. 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 when perused, would indicate that candidate who is seeking promotion to the to possess post of Superintendent BR Grade-I has "Diploma in Civil Engineering" with 5 years regular service in the grade of General Reserve Engineering Force. Whereas appellants possessing Diploma Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED), which fact is not seriously disputed by them. Mr. Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly conceded before this Court that an erroneous proposition was put forth before the High Court, namely, it was contended that 10 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 Diploma is equivalent to a Degree and as such negating said contention, the High Court though justified conclusion had erred in ignoring the consistent stand that had been taken by the Appellants, namely, Diploma in DED possessed by them is that of 2 years course and though column 11 prescribes Diploma in Civil Engineering for being promoted as Superintendent BR-Grade-I is to be treated as equivalent and this aspect was required to be considered by the High Court is an argument which looks attractive at first blush. However, on a careful perusal of the extant Rules as applicable for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-II, said contention has to be necessarily rejected for reasons more than one. Firstly, before the High Court appellants attempted to justify their claim contending "Diploma" is equivalent to a "Degree" and as such being entitled for promotion which has been negatived by the High Court and rightly so. Secondly, appellants tried to justify their claim contending rule as applicable for direct recruitment would be applicable for recruitment by promotion, which has not been accepted by the High Court. In so far as the contention regarding qualification for promotion, the rule itself is explicit and clear, namely, it prescribes for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I only, those candidates possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the grade in General Reserve Engineering Force would be eligible. No doubt, said rule is silent with regard to Diploma in Civil Engineering being either 3 years or otherwise. It is an undisputed fact that appellants possess 'Diploma in DED' and not 'Diploma in Civil Engineering'. It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies."

23. In view of aforesaid aspects, it is evident that until and unless rule 11 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 itself prescribes the aspect of equivalence, the Courts cannot supplement its views or substitute the views to that of expert bodies. The aspect of equivalence as issued by the Government of India is applicable with regard to services of the Central Government whereas the present post pertains to the State of U.P.

24. So far as the aspect of counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 64 (SB) of 2009 is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, since there cannot be any estopple against Statute, neither the counter affidavit nor promotion granted to Smt. Yashodhara Jain would have any bearing with regard to essential qualifications required for the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP).

25. Although the aforesaid essential qualifications are required for purposes of substantive appointment, in the considered opinion of this Court, since the said qualifications are essential in nature the same would also percolate to purposes of holding officiating charge of the said post.

26. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence.

27. Nevertheless since admittedly substantive recruitment on the post of Senior Planner has not been made, opposite parties are directed to constitute Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for purposes of substantive recruitment on the post of Senior Planner. The aforesaid exercise should be completed expeditiously, within a period of six months from today.

28. Petition therefore fails and is dismissed in respect of prayer Nos.1 & 2, whereas it is partly allowed in respect of prayer No.3. December 9, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

He has adverted to the Certificate of Associateship Examination issued by the aforesaid institution as Annexure - 12 to the writ petition. He has also adverted to the Certificate issued by the Institute of Town Planners, India to indicate that petitioner has Associate Membership of the aforesaid Institute. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to a document appended as Annexure - 5 to the writ petition which is a counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 64 (SB) of 2009 to submit that the degree of Associateship Examination and Associate Membership of the Institute of Town Planners, India has been indicated as equivalent to Master's Degree in Planning as per letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

5. He has also adverted to the aforesaid letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (Annexure - 13 to the writ petition) which certifies that Associateship Examination conducted by the Institute of Town Planners is equivalent to a Master's Degree in Planning. He has also adverted to Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Scientific Research & Culture Affairs dated 04.04.1963 to submit that the aforesaid Associateship Examination of the Institute of Town 3 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 Planners, India has been recognized for purposes of recruitment to superior posts and services under the Central Government in the field of Town Planning.

6. It is thus submitted that petitioner's Associate Membership with the Institute of Town Planners being equivalent to a Master's Degree in Engineering, petitioner has the requisite qualification for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner.

7. Learned counsel has also adverted to a combined seniority list dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure - 15 to the writ petition) to submit that petitioner's name has been indicated at Sl. No. 3 with the opposite party No.4 being indicated at Sl. No. 10 of the combined seniority list. It is therefore submitted that since petitioner clearly has essential qualification required for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner and is also senior to opposite party No.4, it was required that he should have been given preference for providing officiating charge on the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP).

8. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the promotion orders dated 08.06.2001 and 18.12.2012 (collectively filed as Annexure - 6 to the writ petition) to submit that in the case of one Smt. Yashodhara Jain, substantive appointment was provided to her on the post of Senior Planner. He laid emphasis on paragraph - 14 of the writ petition to submit that the aforesaid lady has the same qualification as that of petitioner and has been taken as adequate qualifications for substantive recruitment on the post of Senior Planner.

9. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that Rule - 5 of the aforesaid Rules clearly indicates the aspect that the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP) is required to be filled up by promotion from amongst Senior Planners who have put in atleast 5 years as such and the post of Senior Planner requires promotion from amongst permanent Town Planners, Associate Planners, Architect Planners, Senior Architects and Executive Engineers holding a degree in Civil Engineering who possess qualification prescribed in Appendix 'B'. He has thereafter referred to Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Rules to submit that degree 4 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 or post-graduate diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized institution is an essential qualification for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner. It is submitted that since admittedly petitioner does not possess the aforesaid degree or post-graduate diploma, there was no question of providing him with officiating charge of the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP) while opposite party No.4 fulfilling aforesaid essential qualifications has been provided officiating charge of the said post. It is further submitted that once the essential qualifications as indicated in Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Rules do not prescribe for any equivalence, the same cannot be considered.

10. With regard to counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 64 (SB) of 2009, it is submitted that there cannot be any estopple against Statute and in case incorrect stand has been taken by the State Government earlier, it cannot be taken as a precedent.

11. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the fact that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 31.12.2008 for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner and petitioner's name was rejected primarily on the ground that he did not possess the academic essential qualification required for the said post. It is submitted that neither the aforesaid recommendation nor the orders pursuant thereof have ever been challenged by the petitioner.

12. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance of D.P.C. held on 31.12.2008, no order rejecting petitioner's candidature was ever passed and on objections being raised by him, a revised D.P.C. was thereafter constituted on 14.07.2009.

13. Learned counsel for opposite party No.4 while adopting the submissions advanced by learned State Counsel has elaborated upon the same and has drawn attention to Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Rules to submit that while the post of Senior Planner does not contemplate any equivalence regarding academic qualification, the said equivalence has been clearly indicated for recruitment on the post of Assistant Town Planner/ Assistant Planner/ Personal Assistant (Technical). It is therefore submitted that the Rule Making 5 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 Authority has clearly indicated the distinction with regard recruitment on the post of Senior Planner and Assistant Planner whereby equivalence has been specifically provided for the latter but not in the case of former. He has cited the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV and others v. Union of India and others [(2023) 18 SCC 546] to submit that where the rule itself does not prescribe any equivalence, the Courts cannot supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies.

14. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, the aspect requiring consideration is whether the petitioner possesses the essential academic qualification required for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner?

15. As has been discussed here-in-above, while learned counsel for parties admit that Rules of 1987 are applicable upon the aforesaid post for purposes of recruitment, it is the interpretation with regard to Appendix 'B' which will require consideration.

16. Relevant provisions of Rules of 1987 are as follows:- "5. (1) Recruitment the various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the source given below: Name of post Source of recruitment (1) Chief Town and Country Planner By promotion from amongst Senior Planners who have put in atleast 5 years of service as such. (2) Senior Planner from amongst permanent By promotion Town Planners, Associate Planners, Senior Architects and Executive Engineers (holding degree in Civil Engineering who posses the qualification prescribed in Appendix 'B' for the post of Senior Planner and who have put in at least 7 years of service on a gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. 6 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 (3) Town Planners/ By promotion from amongst permanent Associates Planner Assistant Town Planners/ Assistant Planners/Personal Assistants (Technical), Assistant Architects and Assistant Engineers who possess the qualifications prescribed in appendix 'B' for Town Planners/Associate Planer who have put in atleast 7 years of service on a gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. (4) Senior Architect By promotion amongst the permanent (5) Architect Planner Assistant Town Planners/Assistant Planners, Personal Assistant (Technical) and Assistant Architects who possess the qualifications prescribed in appendix 'B' for the post of Senior Architect and who have put in atleast 7 years of service on a gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. By promotion from amongst the permanent Assistant Town Planners/Assistant Planners/ Personal Assistant (Technical), Assistant Architects and Assistant Engineers who possess appendix 'B' for Architect Planner and who put in atleast 7 years of service on gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. the qualification prescribed (6) Executive Engineer By promotion from amongst the permanent Assistant Town Planners/Assistant Planners/ Personal Assistant (Technical), Assistant Architects and Assistant Engineers who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Executive Engineer in appendix 'B' and have put in 7 years of service on gazetted post in U.P. Town and Country Planning Department. WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 7 APPENDIX ‘B’ Serial Name of post Academic Qualifications and Experience no.

1. Senior Planner

1. Degree or post graduate Diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized Institution.

2. Corporate membership of atleast one of the following Institutions – (a) Institution of Town Planners (India) (b) American Institute of Town Planners (c) Institute of Town Planners (London)

2. Town Planner/

1. Degree or post graduate Diploma in Town Associate Planner and Country Planning from a recognized Institution.

2. At least 3 years’ experience in the Town and Regional Planning after obtaining the requisite Degree or Diploma.

3. Senior Architect

1. Degree in Architecture with special paper in Town Planning from a recognized Institution.

4. Architect Planner 1. Degree or post graduate Diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized Institution.

2. Degree in Architecture from a recognized Institution.

5. Executive

1. Degree in Civil Engineering from a Engineer recognized Institution University or an equivalent qualification.

6. Assistant Planner/ 1. Degree or Post graduate Diploma in Town 8 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 Assistant Town and Country Planning from a recognized Planner/ Personal Institution. Assistant (Technical) OR Associate Membership of atleast one of the following Institutions: (a) Institute of Town Planners (India) (b) American Institute of Town Planners (c) Institute of Town Planners (London) OR Equivalent qualifications recognized by the Institute of Town Planners, India, London, American as an equivalent to its membership. Preferential Degree in Architecture or Civil Engineering or an equivalent qualification.

17. From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule 5 juxtaposed with Appendix 'B', it is thus evident that for substantive recruitment on the post of Senior Planner, a degree or post-graduate diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized Institution is an essential qualification.

18. While learned counsel for petitioner has admitted that petitioner does not have the aforesaid requisite qualification but has adverted to the letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the All India Council for that Associateship Technical Education Examination conducted by the Institute of Town Planners, India is to submit (AICTE) equivalent to Master's Degree in Planning.

19. It is thus the case of petitioner that even though he may not possess the essential qualification for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner but his qualifications have been held to be equivalent to that of the essential qualification required. 9 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025

20. With regard to such submission, a perusal of Appendix 'B' will make it evident that there is serious difference with regard to academic qualifications required for the post of Senior Planner and that of Assistant Planner/Assistant Town Planner/Personal Assistant (Technical) with the letter prescribing equivalent qualifications to the essential academic qualification required for recruitment on the said post. The aspect of equivalence is missing with regard to academic qualifications required for the post of Senior Planner.

21. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the Service Rules do not prescribe any equivalence with regard to essential academic qualifications, it is not for this Court to interpret the same in a manner which would obviate the very purpose of essential academic qualifications. In case equivalence is held to be read for recruitment on the post of Senior Planner, it will amount to incorporation of a condition which has been specifically omitted by the Rule Making Authority in its wisdom. It is settled law that such an incorporation can be made only in case the provisions are ambiguous. In the present case, there being no ambiguity this Court does not find it appropriate to incorporate words in the Rules which have been specifically omitted as has been held in the case of All Kerala Parents Association vs State of Kerala [(2018) 2 SCC 410].

22. The aforesaid aspect has been clearly enunciated by Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV and others (supra) in the following manner:- "12. In this background, the qualification as prescribed in column No. 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 when perused, would indicate that candidate who is seeking promotion to the to possess post of Superintendent BR Grade-I has "Diploma in Civil Engineering" with 5 years regular service in the grade of General Reserve Engineering Force. Whereas appellants possessing Diploma Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED), which fact is not seriously disputed by them. Mr. Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly conceded before this Court that an erroneous proposition was put forth before the High Court, namely, it was contended that 10 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 Diploma is equivalent to a Degree and as such negating said contention, the High Court though justified conclusion had erred in ignoring the consistent stand that had been taken by the Appellants, namely, Diploma in DED possessed by them is that of 2 years course and though column 11 prescribes Diploma in Civil Engineering for being promoted as Superintendent BR-Grade-I is to be treated as equivalent and this aspect was required to be considered by the High Court is an argument which looks attractive at first blush. However, on a careful perusal of the extant Rules as applicable for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-II, said contention has to be necessarily rejected for reasons more than one. Firstly, before the High Court appellants attempted to justify their claim contending "Diploma" is equivalent to a "Degree" and as such being entitled for promotion which has been negatived by the High Court and rightly so. Secondly, appellants tried to justify their claim contending rule as applicable for direct recruitment would be applicable for recruitment by promotion, which has not been accepted by the High Court. In so far as the contention regarding qualification for promotion, the rule itself is explicit and clear, namely, it prescribes for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I only, those candidates possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the grade in General Reserve Engineering Force would be eligible. No doubt, said rule is silent with regard to Diploma in Civil Engineering being either 3 years or otherwise. It is an undisputed fact that appellants possess 'Diploma in DED' and not 'Diploma in Civil Engineering'. It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies."

23. In view of aforesaid aspects, it is evident that until and unless rule 11 WRIA No. 13845 of 2025 itself prescribes the aspect of equivalence, the Courts cannot supplement its views or substitute the views to that of expert bodies. The aspect of equivalence as issued by the Government of India is applicable with regard to services of the Central Government whereas the present post pertains to the State of U.P.

24. So far as the aspect of counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 64 (SB) of 2009 is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, since there cannot be any estopple against Statute, neither the counter affidavit nor promotion granted to Smt. Yashodhara Jain would have any bearing with regard to essential qualifications required for the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP).

25. Although the aforesaid essential qualifications are required for purposes of substantive appointment, in the considered opinion of this Court, since the said qualifications are essential in nature the same would also percolate to purposes of holding officiating charge of the said post.

26. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence.

27. Nevertheless since admittedly substantive recruitment on the post of Senior Planner has not been made, opposite parties are directed to constitute Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for purposes of substantive recruitment on the post of Senior Planner. The aforesaid exercise should be completed expeditiously, within a period of six months from today.

28. Petition therefore fails and is dismissed in respect of prayer Nos.1 & 2, whereas it is partly allowed in respect of prayer No.3. December 9, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench