Dismissed

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2024CW/6833/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's application for promotion to Junior Engineer (Civil). The court held that the petitioner's two-year Mechanical Engineering diploma did not meet the mandatory three-year Civil Engineering requirement under the 2008 Recruitment Rules and equivalence could not be declared.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's grievance regarding non-recognition of diploma was dismissed; no promotion directed.

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:29855-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6833/2024

¶4

Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Sh Subha Karan Sharma, aged about 60 Years, R/o Sector 4, Gali No 11, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner Presently working on the post of MCM (Pipe Fitter) in the Office of GE(P) Kanasar, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi

¶8

Directorate General (Pers) Military Engineer Service, Engineer-In-Chief's Branch, Integrated Head Quarter of Mod (Army), Kashmir House, Dhq Po. New Delhi 110011.

¶9

Chief Engineer, South Western Command, Pin-908546 C/o 56 Apo.

¶10

Commander Works Engineer, Military Engineer Services, Bikaner (Air Force)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samuel Masih For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Choudhary

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

23/07/2024

¶16

The writ petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 23^rd January 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No.395 of 2015. 2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner raised a grievance that the Diploma in Engineering granted by the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarsahar (in short, ‘IASE’) which is a Deemed University was not considered by the

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[2024:RJ-JD:29855-DB]

¶19

[CW-6833/2024]

¶20

respondent authority for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).

¶21

The Tribunal discussed the case set up by the petitioner as

¶22

under:-

¶23

“7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it reveals that as per the SRO 32 of 2011 (Rrs of JE) required educational qualifications for promotion is degree from recognized University of three years’ diploma in Engineering from recognized Institute or Board.

¶24

Perusal of the diploma issued in favour of the applicants reveals that IASE issued diploma in Mechanical Engineering on having passed the examination held on 2010 to Pawan Kumar Sharma (applicant in OA No.395/2015) on 07.05.2011. Similarly, provisional certificate of diploma in Electrical Engineering was issued in favour of Bajrang Lal Punia (applicant in OA No.426/2015) on 22.01.2014. After perusal of the above diplomas, we find that nowhere in the certificates of diploma, it has been mentioned that this diploma is of three years. The applicants in their pleadings also do not say that their diplomas in Engineering are of three years. It is an admitted position that AICTE did not approve IASE as deemed University to start the technical courses. The question whether approval by AICTE is required or not cannot be decided in absence of necessary parties.

¶25

In the present OA, the applicants have not arrayed the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) as party-respondents.

¶26

Apart from this, the employer is within his right to decide whether a degree or diploma issued by a particular Institute or University without approval from by AICTE is acceptable or not.

¶27

In the present matter, the applicants have failed to establish that the diploma issued by IASE was to be considered valid for promotion in the Military Engineering Services. Unless and until, the applicants proves the genuineness of the validity of the diploma obtained by them from IASE, Sardar Sahar.

¶28

So far as the claiming the parity with Rajnish Kumar and Rajendra Kumar are concerned, we note that these two persons were accorded promotions without observing anything on the validity of diploma obtained by them from the same Institute does not bind us to follow the same, by issuing directions to the respondents to grant promotion to the applicants herein. It is settled principle of law that an illegality cannot be perpetuated.

¶29

In the present matter, the applicants failed to prove the genuineness and validity of the diploma obtained from IASE, Sardarsahar, therefore, we do not deem it fit to direct the respondents to accept the diploma issued from IASE as valid one.”

¶30

[2024:RJ-JD:29855-DB]

¶31

[CW-6833/2024]

¶32

(3 of 4)

¶33

The petitioner claims that he obtained a diploma in Mechanical Engineering of the duration of two years; as he was possessing the qualification of senior secondary education, from the Institute of Advance Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarsahar, Rajasthan. He has pleaded that the IASE is a deemed University by virtue of the notification dated 25^th June 2002 issued under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the degree/diploma award by it is valid for appointment/promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the course conducted by the IASE under the Engineering stream requiring passing of standard 10^th examination for securing the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Military Engineering Services, Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Recruitment (Amended) Rules, 2008 provided essential educational qualifications of (a) Matriculation or equivalent and (b) Three years Diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognized Institute or University or Board or Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognized University or Institution or Board or equivalent and, that, the petitioner possesses such qualification.

¶34

Under the Military Engineering Services, Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Recruitment (Amended) Rules, 2008, for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) the minimum educational qualifications are prescribed at Clause 8 which reads as under:-

¶35

“(a) Matriculation or equivalent.

¶36

(b) Three years Diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognized Institute or University or Board or Degree

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[2024:RJ-JD:29855-DB]

¶39

[CW-6833/2024]

¶40

in Civil Engineering from the recognized University or Institution or Board or equivalent.”

¶41

Admittedly, the petitioner possesses a two years’ Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and, therefore, he does not fulfill the minimum educational qualification of three years’ Diploma in Civil Engineering. This is by now too well-settled a proposition that this is not within the domain of the Courts to declare equivalence of educational qualification. Secondly, under the recruitment rules, the essential educational qualification is prescribed as Matriculation and 3 years’ diploma which a candidate seeking promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) must possess. Therefore, the petitioner who possesses 2 years’ diploma in Mechanical Engineering has rightly been held by the Tribunal not qualifying for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).

¶42

Therefore, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6833/2024 is dismissed.

¶43

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶44

(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J

¶45

1-KshamaD-

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Mohit Kumar

Arpit Paliwal Vs Rajasthan High Court

Union of India Vs No. 3181525Y Ex. Hav Bhanwar Lal Rinwa

Paras Mal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gajender Bishnoi Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Jyoti Tripathi