Dismissed

Rahul Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Transport, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023/54/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal against the rejection of a petitioner's candidature for a Regional Inspector post was dismissed. The court relied on Full Bench precedents holding that a Bachelor's Degree is a distinct qualification from a Diploma and cannot be treated as equivalent or higher. Thus, the petitioner lacking a Diploma was ineligible.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed; the petitioner was held ineligible as he lacked the prescribed Diploma qualification.

Rahul Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 54 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Rahul Sharma

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Transport, Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Mani Sharma

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)

¶7

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶8

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶9

(C.M.A. No. 1 of 2023: Application for condonation of delay.)

¶10

Heard Sri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as also Sri V.P. Nag, learned Addl. C.S.C. and Sri Raj Kumar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4, and perused the record.

¶11

Cause shown for the delay in filing the special appeal is sufficient. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶12

( Order on Appeal )

¶13

The instant special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ-A No. 12074 of 2018, Rahul Sharma v. State of U.P. & ors.

¶14

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 30.12.2014 an advertisement was issued for filling up 77 posts of Regional Inspector (Technical) by the Transport Department. The eligibility qualification mentioned in the advertisement was as follows:-

¶15

"(1) Must have passed the High School Examination of the Board at High School and intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an examination recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto, and (2) (i) A diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years course) or (ii) A diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3 years course) or (iii) Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the Central Government or State Government; and (3) Working experience of at least one year in

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

a reputed Automobile Workshop, which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines; and (4) Must have a driving license authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles. (5) Must have thorough knowledge of Hindi language written in Devanagari script."

¶18

The petitioner possesses a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from an Institution recognized by the Uttar Pradesh Technical University and he applied in furtherance of the aforesaid advertisement.

¶19

By means of office-memorandum dated 21.4.2018 the Public Service Commission has informed that the petitioner possesses qualification of B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering and he does not possess any of the eligibility qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and, therefore, his candidature was rejected.

¶20

The appellant assailed the aforesaid office-memorandum dated 21.04.2018 by filing Writ-A No. 12074 of 2018.

¶21

Relying upon the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Deepak Singh & ors. v. State of U.P. & ors., 2019 (7) ADJ 453 , and the decision rendered in Abhishek Sharma and 3 ors. v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 10266 of 2018 decided on 27.4.2022 , the Hon'ble Single Judge held that diploma in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering and Bachelor's Degree in Engineering are distinct qualifications and both cannot be treated as equivalent. The Hon'ble Single Judge held that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification and a higher qualification cannot be substituted in place of a diploma.

¶22

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge the appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal.

¶23

In Deepak Singh (supra) the following question was under consideration of the Full Bench:-

¶24

“In the backdrop of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

present larger Bench framing the following questions: A. Whether a Degree in the field in question is entitled to be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to a Diploma in that field?

¶27

B. Whether the decisions in Alok Kumar Mishra and Kartikey lay down the correct position in law when they hold that a Degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment as a Junior Engineer?

¶28

C. Whether a degree holder can be held to be ineligible to participate in a selection process for Junior Engineer in light of the relevant statutory rules?

¶29

D. Whether the exclusion of degree holders from the zone of consideration would meet the tests as propounded by the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Deep Chandra Tewari”

¶30

The Full Bench answered the questions as follows: -

¶31

Thus, our answers to the questions posed before the Full Bench are as under:

¶32

(1) 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.

¶33

(2) The decision in the case of Alok Kumar Mishra (supra) and Kartikey (supra) laid down the correct position in law holding that the degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment as a Junior Engineer with regard to the Diploma in question.

¶34

(3) The degree holder is held to be ineligible to participate in the selection process of Junior Engineer in the light of the Advertisement issued.

¶35

(4) The exclusion of the degree holders from the zone of consideration is in consonance with the tests propounded by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttarakhand and others v. Deep Chandra Tewari and another.

¶36

(5) The State Government, while prescribing the essential qualifications or desirable qualifications are best suited to decide the requirements for selecting a candidate for nature of work required by the State Government and the Courts are precluded from laying down the conditions of eligibility. If the language in the Rules is clear judicial review cannot be used to decide what is best suited for the employer.

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

(6) The 'O' level Diploma granted by NIELIT is not equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application and there is no presumption available to hold that the PGDCA possess the necessary qualification as prescribed for 'O' level Diploma accorded by NIELIT.”

¶39

Abhishek Sharma and 3 ors. v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 10266 of 2018 decided on 27.4.2022, was a case arising out of the same advertisement, which has been challenged in the present case and while dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court held that: -

¶40

“22. In view of above discussion on facts as well as on law the prayers made in all these writ petitioners are liable to be rejected, firstly on the ground that there is no repugnancy between qualification prescribed by notification issued under Act, 1988 and Rules, 1980, as mended with regard to selection on the post of Regional Inspector (Technical); secondly, the present cases are squarely covered by the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in Deepak Singh (supra) wherein it was held that Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering are to distinct qualifications and the decree in the field in question cannot be viewed as a higher qualification without comparing to Diploma in that field; thirdly, considering the above referred judgments passed by Supreme Court, that in absence of any statutory rule it would not be permissible to draw an interference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another lower qualification, fourthly, that prescription of qualification for a post is the matter of recruitment policy and lastly Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner who admittedly held Bachelor’s degree in Engineering and who does not hold a Diploma in Engineering, does not possess the prescribed eligibility qualification. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge that the writ petition was devoid of merits. Accordingly, the instant special appeal also stands dismissed .

¶42

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. ) ( Ramesh Sinha, J. )

¶43

Order Date :- 7.2.2023 A.Nigam

¶44

Page 4 of 4

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Transport, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Transport, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Masarrat Husain Vs Union of India through Secretary Culture New Delhi and Others

Moti Lal Yadav and Anr. P.I.L. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Animal and Husbandary and Others

Kishan Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another Vs Anju Katiyar

Santosh Kumar Shukla 3531 S/S2000 Vs Syndicate Bank through Its G. Manager Industrial and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Maurya S/O Mannu Lal Maurya and Anr. Vs Chancellor Lucknow University Lucknow and Ors.