Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation This Is Not a Case of Greed Simplicitor but a Celebration of Fraud: Karnataka High Court Grants Specific Performance, Slams Vendor for Violating Court Orders Limitation Period Under Section 18-A of Rent Act Mandatory, Delay Not Condonable – Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NRI Landlord's Eviction Against Tenant Custom Department Cannot Revive Time-Barred Show Cause Notices After Seven Years Without Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Notices to JBS Exports Public Property Cannot Be Managed Privately for Decades — Fair Price Shops in Hospitals Must Be Allotted by Auction: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Registered Sale Deed Alone Does Not Dismantle Prior Security Interest: Gauhati High Court Rejects Buyer’s Writ Against SARFAESI Action, Cites Expanded Statutory Definition Old OBC Certificates Won’t Work — Supreme Court Says Cut-Off Date Is Final in Rajasthan Civil Judge Exams

Diplomas Over Degrees: Orissa High Court Rules Degree Engineers Can't Compete for Diploma-Only JE Posts

10 December 2024 4:29 PM

By: sayum


Orissa High Court rejecting petitions filed by Degree Engineers seeking eligibility to apply for Junior Engineer (JE) posts under the Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination, 2023. The court ruled that Degree Engineers cannot claim equivalence with Diploma qualifications unless explicitly provided in the recruitment rules, thereby affirming the autonomy of employers in setting qualifications.

"Equivalence Cannot Be Presumed; Recruitment Criteria Are Employer’s Prerogative"

The court underscored the principle that higher qualifications do not automatically presuppose lower ones unless explicitly stated in the recruitment rules. Referring to a line of judicial precedents, including Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) and Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India (2023), the court emphasized that judicial intervention is unwarranted in recruitment policy matters unless there is ambiguity or violation of law.

The dispute arose when the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (OSSC) issued an advertisement dated December 8, 2023, for recruiting Junior Engineers (JE) under the Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination, 2023. The eligibility criteria restricted applicants for JE (Civil) posts to holders of a Diploma in Engineering or equivalent qualification. Degree Engineers argued that their higher qualification should inherently include eligibility for diploma-based posts.

Diploma Engineers’ Opposition: Intervenors representing Diploma Engineers contended that the advertisement was clear and unambiguous. They argued that allowing Degree Engineers to compete would encroach upon posts specifically reserved for Diploma holders under the Odisha Diploma Engineers’ Service Rules, 2012.

Degree Engineers’ Argument: Petitioners claimed that Degree qualifications should be considered equivalent or superior to Diplomas, citing educational frameworks such as the AICTE Regulations, 2007, which equate diplomas with the first year of degree programs for lateral entry.

Equivalence of Qualifications: Whether a Degree in Engineering presupposes a Diploma in Engineering for recruitment purposes.

Judicial Role in Recruitment Policy: The extent to which courts can interpret or expand qualifications prescribed by recruitment rules.

Rules Governing JE Recruitment: Whether the Odisha Diploma Engineers’ Service Rules, 2012, and the Combined Technical Services Recruitment Examination Rules, 2022, permit Degree Engineers to compete for JE posts reserved for Diploma holders.

The court reiterated the principle that fixation of qualifications for government posts lies exclusively within the domain of the employer. It held that the State, as the employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications based on the job’s nature and requirements, without interference from the judiciary.

Citing Zahoor Ahmad Rather (2019), the court observed:

"Judicial review cannot expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine."

The court rejected the argument that a degree inherently includes a diploma. It clarified that both qualifications operate independently and cater to distinct recruitment needs. The court emphasized that equivalence must be expressly provided in recruitment rules and cannot be assumed based on educational hierarchies.

AICTE Regulations Misinterpreted: While the AICTE Regulations, 2007, allow lateral entry into degree programs for diploma holders, the court noted that this provision pertains to academic progression and not recruitment.

The court found that the Odisha Diploma Engineers’ Service Rules, 2012, explicitly restrict JE (Civil) posts to Diploma holders. For JE (Mechanical) posts, Degree Engineers are permitted, provided they also possess a Diploma. The advertisement was consistent with these rules and left no room for ambiguity.

The petitioners cited Puneet Sharma v. HPSEB (2021), where Degree Engineers were allowed to compete for Diploma-level posts due to specific provisions in the recruitment rules. The court distinguished this case, stating that Odisha’s recruitment framework lacks similar provisions or quotas for Degree Engineers.

"The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The employer is best suited to decide the qualifications required for a specific job, and courts must tread cautiously in matters of judicial review."

"Degree and Diploma qualifications operate independently. A degree does not presuppose the acquisition of a diploma, nor do they share a hierarchical relationship."

"Judicial review cannot rewrite recruitment rules or expand the ambit of qualifications. The court’s role is limited to ensuring compliance with the law."

Petitions Dismissed: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that Degree Engineers are ineligible for JE (Civil) posts under the current advertisement.

Interim Orders Vacated: Interim orders allowing Degree Engineers to apply for the examination were vacated.

Final Declaration: The court affirmed that only Diploma holders or those with equivalent qualifications recognized under the Odisha Diploma Engineers’ Service Rules, 2012, are eligible for JE (Civil) posts.

The judgment underscores the judiciary’s restraint in interfering with recruitment policies and its commitment to upholding the employer’s discretion. It reinforces the principle that qualifications must align strictly with the rules and advertisements, and assumptions of equivalence have no place in recruitment processes.

Date of Decision: December 3, 2024

Similar News