Unnikrishnan Cv vs Union Of India

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7188 OF 2013

UNNIKRISHNAN CV AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Appellants are claiming promotion to the post of Superintendent BR

Grade-I and Assistant Engineer as per Column 11 of General Reserve

Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1982

(hereinafter referred to as ‘GREF Rules, 1982’ for sake of brevity).

Short facts necessary for disposing of this appeal are crystallized as

Signature Not Verified under:

Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2023.03.28 17:56:44 IST Reason: 2

Between 1977 and 1986, appellants came to be appointed to the posts

of Overseers/Surveyor Draughtsman (Field and Topo) in accordance with the

provisions of column No. 7 of GREF Rules, 1982. The next promotional post

from Surveyor Draughtsman/Overseers is the post of Superintendent Grade-

II. Petitioners were possessing ITI certificate at the time of their appointment

as prescribed under Column 7 of Schedule I of GREF Rules, 1982. On being

appointed they were given opportunity to pursue course in Diploma in

Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED, for short) at Government

expenditure from CME Pune and were awarded Diploma certificate after

completion of the course. Some of the appellants came to be promoted to

Superintendent BR II and some of them were denied. The posts held by the

Appellants as on date of presentation of Writ Petition before the High Court is

tabulated hereinbelow for convenience and immediate reference:

S.No Petitioner’s Name Date of Appoint- Date of . ment with initial promotion with post Post

1. GS159693P 23-07-1983 31-12-1993 UNNIKRISHNAN CV Surveyor Supdt BR-II Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

2. GS160939 06-07-1984 15-04-2001 BHAGWAN DAS Surveyor Supdt- BR-II Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

3. GS162102 21-06-1985 Not yet promoted SURJIT DAS Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & 3

Topo)

4. GS159880 12-10-1983 23-08-1664 KARAMJIT MALIK Surveyor Supdt BR-II Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

5. GS162098 21.06.1985 03.03.2008 MOHINDER SINGH Surveyor Supdt BR-II Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

6. GS159704 29-07-1983 17-12-1993 RAMNIVAS Surveyor Supdt BR-II Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

7. GS157772L 23-08-1982 31.01-2002 BALKAR SINGH Overseer Supdt BR-II

8. GS158152F 01-09-1982 12-02-2001 BALWINDER SINGH Overseer Supdt BR-II

9. GS159017 01-11-1982 Not yet promoted ABHIMANYU SINGH Overseer

10. GS157742 19-08-1982 04-01-2000 Supdt PARAMJIT SINGH Overseer BR-II

11. GS162099 21.06.1985 06.03.2008 Supdt JASVEER SINGH Surveyor BR-II Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

12. GS162867 16.01.1986 05.03.2008 RISHIKESH MALLIK Surveyor Supdt BR-II Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

13. GS155226 27-12-77 Overseer 15-09-1986 RAJENDER SINGH Supdt BR-II

14. GS120857 BS NEGI 31.05-1975 16-12-1986 Overseer Supdt BR-II

15. GS155089 18-18-1977 21-10-1986 SAMUEL T Overseer Supdt BR-II

16. GS161008 02-08-1984 28-02-2008 RAJENDRAN NAIR Overseer Supdt BR-II

17. GS159881 12-10-1983 03-02-1995 SACHCHIDANAND Surveyor Supdt BR-II 4

SINGH Draughtsman (Fd & Topo)

18. GS156203-S, 15.12.81 S/D Man 14-09-1992 JAGBIR SINGH (Fd/Topo) Supdt BR-II

Aforesaid data would indicate that first promotional post was

superintendent BR Grade-II and most of the appellants as indicated

hereinabove are serving in the said post after having been promoted between

1993 to 2008.

2. Non-granting of promotion to Grade-I and Assistant Engineer is said

to be the cause of action for filing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 167 of 2013

wherein it was contended that as per column 11 of GREF Rules, 1982, they

are entitled to be promoted to said post which has been denied by Union of

India on the premise that column 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 provides that a

candidate should possess “Diploma in Civil Engineering” whereas appellants

were possessing “Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design”. The

High Court by Impugned Order rejected the prayer of the appellants on the

ground that:

(i) Appellants’ claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I

is premised on two grounds, i.e., firstly the so-called equivalence declared by

the AICTE in November, 2000, and secondly, the order of the Division Bench 5

passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1364 of 1998, dated 03.08.2005. As far as

first contention is concerned, the High Court was of the opinion that AICTE

Notification recognized the diploma in the respective filed as eligible

qualification and no more. It was also held that notification in terms 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.

(ii) While dealing with second contention, High Court took note of the

judgment dated 03.08.2005 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1364 of 1998

which revealed that grievance of the writ petitioner therein was though he had

held a two-year diploma-which was deemed sufficient by the respondents qua

others similarly placed, had been denied promotion. Whereas the relevant

qualification which an aspirant has to possess for the post of Superintendent

Grade-I is a degree. The order of the Division Bench revealed that said Court

had considered the rule to be one which prescribed that incumbent ought to

have a three-year diploma, a fact situation which is entirely different from the

present case.

3. Mr. Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has

vehemently contended that juniors of appellants having Civil 6

Engineering/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering diploma from CME, Pune

have been promoted to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-II immediately

after passing of diploma from CME Pune and yet Appellants have not been

promoted to the higher rank till date. Contending that as per the extant rules,

appellants are entitled for the promotional post they have sought for appeal

being allowed and prayers sought for in the Writ Petition being granted.

3.1 Per contra Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Union

of India has supported the stand taken before the High Court and by

reiterating the same before this Court has contended that as per Rule 11 of the

GREF Rules, 1982, appellants are not possessing requisite qualification and

they are not eligible to be promoted.

3.2 After bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival

contentions raised at the Bar, we are of the considered view that point for our

consideration which lies in the narrow compass is:

Whether the appellants are entitled to be promoted to

the post of Superintendent BR, Grade-I?

3.3 The GREF Rules 1982 have been framed by the Union of India under

Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules 7

stipulates that it applies to the posts specified under Column 1 of the

Schedule annexed to the Rules.

The qualification prescribed under Column No. 11 of the Schedule for

promotion to the post of Superintendent Building and Roads Grade-I reads

as under:

SCHEDULE Name of Post Number Classification Scale of Whether Age limit for Educational of posts pay Selection direct recruits and other Post or qualification non- required for selection direct post recruits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Superintendent 420 General Rs.550- Selection Between 18 and Essential:

Buildings and subject to central 20-650- 30 years Recognized Roads Grade-I variation Service 25-750 (Reliable for degree in dependent Group ‘C’ Government Civil on work Non- Gazetted servants upto 35 Engineering load Non- years in or Ministerial accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government).

Note: This crucial date for determining the age limit shall be the closing date for receipt of applications from candidates in India (other than those in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep).

In case, of appointment through the 8

Employment Exchanges, the crucial date for determining the age limits shall be the last date upto which Employment Exchanges are asked to submit the names.

Whether age Period of Method of In case of If a Depart- Circumstances and probation recruitment recruitment by mental in which Union educational if any whether by promotion/ Promotion Public Service qualifi- direct deputation/ Committee Com-mission to cations recruitment transfer, grades exists, what is be consulted in prescribed or by pro- from which its composition making for direct motion or by promotion or recruitment recruit will deputation/ deputation or apply in the transfer and transfer to be case of percentage made promotees of the vacancies to be filled by various methods.

8 9 10 11 12 13 Age: No 2 years Direct Promotion Group ‘C’ and Not applicable Qualifications, recruitment Superintendent, ‘D’ No. excerpt as 10% failing Buildings and Departmental provided which by Roads, Grade II Promotion against promotion, with recognized Committee for Column II failing which Diploma in Civil considering by deputation/ Engineering with Promotion and transfer, 5 years regular Confirmation:

promotion- service in the Lt. Col. 90% failing grade in General Superintending which from Reserve Force. Engineer- the Army on Deputations/ Chairman posting/ Transfer: Major/ transfer and Officers holding Executive failing which analogous/ Engineer/ by direct equivalent posts Civilians recruitment under the Officer, Grade- Central /State I- Member Governments or posts in the scale of Rs.425- 700 or equivalent with 3 years regular 9

service in the grade and possessing the qualification prescribed in column 7. (Period of deputation ordinarily not exceeding 3 years)

For promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I, the prescribed or

requisite qualification is from the candidates/employees working as

Superintendent, BR Grade-II with recognized Diploma in Civil Engineering

with 5 years regular service in the Grade in General Reserve Engineering

Force. The officers who are on deputation/transfer and holding

analogous/equivalent posts under the Central and State Governments or post

in the scale of 425-700 or equivalent with 3 years regular service in Grade and

possessing the qualification prescribed in column No. 7 are also entitled to be

considered for being promoted as superintendent BR Grade-I.

4. The contentions which came to be raised before the High Court by the

writ appellants were two-fold, namely, (i) a direction for promotion to the post

of Grade-I being issued, and (ii) a direction to the Union of India to grant pay-

scale of 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with

recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission. It was also contended that 10

Diploma is equivalent to Degree which is required for recruitment to the post

of Grade-I. It is in this background the High Court vide paragraph 4 of

impugned judgment has examined this argument and negatived the contention

of the appellants, holding that claim is without any basis and on account of

appellants not possessing Degree their claim came to be rejected. However, in

so far as claim with regard to the grant of pay-scale as sought for was granted

and undisputedly there is no challenge by the Union of India to the second

prayer granted. It is only the first prayer wherein promotion which was sought

for, which has been negatived has been assailed in the present appeal.

5. 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 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), 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 Diploma is

equivalent to a Degree and as such negating said contention, the High Court

though justified its conclusion had erred in ignoring the consistent stand that 11

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 12

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.

6. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr.,1

this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It

cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the

university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution,

duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course

was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university

therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show

that the distance education course had been recognized as such.

7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors 2 ,

it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications

as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the

job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of

various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various

1 (2009) 1 SCC 610 2 (2019) 2 SCC 404 13

qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the

prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed

qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification

is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.

(Emphasis supplied)

8. The diploma courses offered by College of Military Engineering,

Pune, (CME) has been recognized as a course for recruitment to the post

under the Central Government vide notification dated 01.02.2001, issued by

Ministry of Human Resource Development (Annexure P-8). Said notification

does not indicate diploma courses specified therein which are recognized by

the Government of India are to be treated as equivalent. No material has been

placed on record by the appellants to demonstrate that Diploma in DED is

equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering.

9. 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 14

is not as prescribed under the Rules. It is no doubt true that eligibility for

promotional post namely Superintendent BR Grade-I is not conditioned by

any year wise stipulations vis-a-vis the diploma course. In that view of the

matter, prayer of the appellants cannot be granted for the reasons indicated

hereinabove and we do not find any fallacy in the reasons assigned by the

High Court.

10. For the reasons afore-stated, we are of the considered view that the

appeal is liable to be rejected and accordingly it stands rejected as being

devoid of merits. Costs made easy.

.……………………….J. (Sanjay Kishan Kaul)

………………….…….J. (Manoj Misra)

…………………..……J. (Aravind Kumar)

New Delhi, March 28, 2023