Court Must Exercise Restraint While Determining Equivalence Between Qualifications; Conditions Of Recruitment To Be Viewed Reasonably: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering the appeals filed by the candidates whose selections were set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra said, “In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the appellants and there is no apparent or glaring difference in the qualifications, we see no reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence.”

Advocate Meena K Poulose represented the Appellants while Advocate Amarjit Singh Bedi represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Department of Electricity had issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), a Group ‘C’ post. The appellants are all Diploma-holders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, whereas the respondents hold a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The appellants and the respondents had participated in the selection process. The appellants were declared selected. Aggrieved, the respondents, whose names did not figure in the Select List, filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the appellants’ selection and held that unstated qualifications cannot be read as a part of those which are specified. Hence, the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court but the same were dismissed.

The High Court directed that the select list be recast by only including candidates who possessed the exact qualification as prescribed by the advertisement, and the eligible candidates from the fresh list shall replace the appellants. The appellants were candidates whose names figured in the select list. The Apex Court issued notice and the judgment of the High Court was stayed pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition. In such a factual scenario, the matter reached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Reference was made by the Bench to the Lakshadweep Electricity Department (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002 which prescribe the requirements in its Schedule, indicating the name of the post, scale of pay, age, and the qualifications required. Given that the recruiting authority had sought a clarification on whether a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering is equivalent to a Diploma in Electrical Engineering and accepted a clarification to the effect, the Bench did not see any reason to deny such an equivalence for the purposes of the advertisement. The Respondents too in filing the OA, did not lay any foundation about why such equivalence should be denied.

It was noticed that the administration had taken a categorical stand before CAT and the High Court that the two degrees are considered equivalent for the purposes of recruitment to the said post. “Both CAT and the High Court have ignored the fact that the recruiting authority had attempted to assess similarities between the two qualifications before issuing the advertisement”, the Bench said.

Reference was also made to the judgment in Union of India v Uzair Imran (2023) emphasizing the restraint a court must exercise while determining equivalence between qualifications. As per the Bench, there was nothing on record to show that the Respondents had adduced any convincing material evidence to prove that the qualifications prescribed were very different from the qualifications possessed by the appellants. However, the employer indicated the efforts made by it in satisfying that the qualifications are equivalent and that the Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering is the same as the qualification prescribed in the advertisement.

“Even if some ground exists for the High Court to exercise judicial review, the standard that the High Court would adopt, as indicated in Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union of India, would be to see that, “the terms and conditions of service are [intended to be] construed reasonably, and too technical a view can defeat the essential spirit and intent embodied in them.In light of the law re-iterated above and considering the fact that the employer has not objected to the appellants’ diplomas, it was not appropriate for the High Court to take a technical view of the matter and set aside the appointments”, the Bench held.

Thus, setting aside the decisions of the CAT and the High Court, the Bench allowed the present appeals of the appointed candidates.

Cause Title: Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 251)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Sanand Ramakrishnan, AOR C. K. Sasi, Advocate Meena K Poulose, AOR Manu Krishnan G

Respondents: AOR Sanand Ramakrishnan, Advocates Amarjit Singh Bedi, Surekha Raman, Shreyash Kumar, Harshit Singh, Imlikaba Jamir, Yashwant Sanjenbam, Sidharth Nair, AOR M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Manu Krishnan G, AOR C. K. Sasi

Click here to read/download Judgment