Court Cannot Declare Equivalency Of A Course: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on 28th March rejected the appeal filed to grant promotion to Grade-I and Assistant Engineer on the ground that the appellant did not possess the required degree and court cannot prescribe the qualification or declare the equivalency of a course.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Aravind Kumar said, “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.”

The appeal was filed by employees who sought promotion to Grade-I and Assistant Engineer.The promotion was denied by the Union of India on the ground that they do not possess the degree prescribed for the promotion.

The decision of the Union of India not to promote the employees was later affirmed by the High Court. The employees, being aggrieved by the same, had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Background

Between 1977 and 1986, appellants were appointed to the posts of Overseers/Surveyor Draughtsman in accordance with the provisions of column No. 7 of GREF Rules, 1982.

The appellants possessed ITI certificates at the time of their appointment, as prescribed under Column 7 of Schedule I of the GREF Rules, 1982.

After their appointment, they were given the opportunity to pursue a Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) at government expense from CME Pune. Upon completion of the course, they were awarded a Diploma certificate. Some of the appellants were promoted to Superintendent BR II, while others were denied the promotion.

A writ petition was filed before the High Court praying to promote the petitioners to Grade-I and Assistant Engineer.

The High Court by Impugned Order rejected the prayer to promote on the ground that AICTE (Apex Advisory body for technical education) notification nowhere recognizes that the diploma accorded by the College of Military Engineering is equivalent to a degree, which is the essential qualification for holding the post of Superintendent Grade-I.

The appeal was filed in Supreme Court against the High Court decision by employees who were denied the promotion to Grade-I and Assistant Engineer and they contended that they are entitled to be promoted to said post as per Column 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982.

The Union of India argued that promotion was denied to the appellants on the grounds that, according to Column 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982, a candidate should possess a 'Diploma in Civil Engineering', whereas the appellants possessed a 'Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design'

Analysis by the Court

After hearing the parties and considering the material on record the Apex Court noted that qualification as prescribed in column No. 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 when perused, would indicate that a candidate who is seeking promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I has to possess “Diploma in Civil Engineering” with 5 years regular service in the grade of General Reserve Engineering Force. Whereas appellants are possessing Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED).

The Court further explained that 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’.

Referring to the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr the Court reiterated that, “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.”

The Court held that No material has been placed on record by the appellants to demonstrate that Diploma in DED is equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering.

The Court further said that the presumption on which the Writ Petition seems to have been presented is on the premise that appellants have been denied promotion on the ground that they possess a two year diploma not three year diploma, by completely ignoring the fact that denial of promotion is on the ground that candidates do not possess the prescribed requisite qualification namely “Diploma in Civil Engineering” and “Diploma in DED” possessed by them is not as prescribed under the Rules.

In light of the above the prayer for promotion was not allowed and the appeal was rejected.

Case Title- Unnikrishnan Cv & ors. v. UOI

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256