The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the Petitions challenging the orders revoking the appointment of the petitioners by way of transfer to the cadre of Civil Engineer (Degree Holders) and observed that a person who already had both Degree and Diploma can contest for the posts earmarked for Degree as well as Diploma Holders, but he cannot move rather pole vault in the category of persons who are directly appointed as Degree Holders.

The Writ Petitions before the High Court challenged the different orders passed qua each of the petitioners, whereby the earlier order appointing the petitioners by way of transfer to the cadre of Civil Engineer (Degree Holders) was recalled/revoked.

Referring to the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973, the Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta explained, “A person who already had both - Degree and Diploma can well vie for the posts earmarked for Degree Holders as well as Diploma Holders, but he cannot move rather pole vault in the category of persons who are directly appointed as Degree Holders, unless he acquires the degree or AMIE after his/her appointment. A candidate who was having diploma at the time of appointment and who acquires degree during his service alone can take benefit of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973.”

Advocate Harish Kumar Purohit represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Kunal Bishnoi represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board – fifth had issued an advertisement notifying 59 posts for Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) and 15 posts for Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders). The petitioners had vied for both the categories of posts for Junior Engineer (Civil) (namely, Degree Holders and Diploma Holders) as they possessed a diploma and a degree in Civil Engineering at the time of furnishing their application form. Due to a paper leak, the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) got deferred. The petitioners could, however, get their position secured in the merit list of Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders).

The petitioners were appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders), whereafter they were regularized. Later on, the petitioners moved applications seeking their appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders). The petitioners’ degrees were entered in their service records and their names were also added to the list of Junior Engineers (Civil - Degree Holders).

However, when the second respondent- Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board sought opinion from the Department of Personnel about granting benefit of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973, they opined that the appointment of the petitioners as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) was not proper. Consequently, the impugned orders came to be passed.

Reasoning

Referring to clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973, the Bench mentioned that the encadrement of a degree holder in terms of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 is not an appointment per-se; it is an ‘appointment by way of transfer’. It is like an absorption in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders).

“A candidate who was having diploma at the time of appointment and who acquires degree during his service alone can take benefit of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973”, the Bench said while also adding, “...the petitioners have not been put to any disadvantageous position. Neither their designation has been changed nor has their salary been reduced.”

The Bench also took note of the fact that clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 was incorporated so that all those candidates who could not acquire engineering degrees, can subsequently acquire additional qualification to match the degree in Engineering (which is or which was considered to be a prerequisite qualification) and get in the mainstream of engineers. “According to this Court, this provision has lost both its efficacy and utility - as engineering colleges are in abundance and the number of candidates holding degrees is overwhelming”, it further stated.

The High Court was of the view that it is imperative for the Government being a model employer to provide employment opportunities to those less fortunate, who are unable to secure sufficient marks and means to get into the engineering colleges, but then, permitting the candidates who are holding degrees and diploma to contest against the posts for Diploma Holders despite having degrees and then allowing them to take advantage of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 is not only impermissible in law but also against the express provision and legislative intent. “Such action cannot be countenanced. The respondents have rightly canceled petitioners’ absorption”, the Bench held.

Thus, finding no merit in the submission of the Petitioners, the Bench dismissed the Petitions.

Cause Title: Ram Niwas & Ors. v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:12276)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Harish Kumar Purohit

Respondents: Advocates Kunal Bishnoi, Sushil Solanki, AAG I.R. Choudhary, Advocates K.S. Solanki, Nandipna Gehlot, Manish Patel

Click here to read/download Order


Rajasthan High CourtJustice Dinesh Mehta

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.