Qualification/ Service Condition Within Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Employer: Allahabad High Court Upholds Recruitment Process Of IIT-Kanpur
Recently, the Allahabad High Court upheld the recruitment process adopted by IIT-Kanpur for the post Executive Engineer as no challenge to the parent IIT Rules, 2018 was made by the appellant. The Court held that IIT-Kanpur, being the employer, is empowered to make rules for recruitment of its staff as it is within its expertise as to what the institution requires.Observing that IIT Kanpur is...
Recently, the Allahabad High Court upheld the recruitment process adopted by IIT-Kanpur for the post Executive Engineer as no challenge to the parent IIT Rules, 2018 was made by the appellant. The Court held that IIT-Kanpur, being the employer, is empowered to make rules for recruitment of its staff as it is within its expertise as to what the institution requires.
Observing that IIT Kanpur is a premier institution in the country, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held,
“Prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertains to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the authority. It is not open to the Courts to direct the authority to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria.”
Case Background
In 1988, appellant-petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Trainee) in Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur on temporary and adhoc basis for a period of two years from the date of his joining, which was further extended for six months.
In 1991, appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer pursuant to an advertisement by IIT-Kanpur. Thereafter, in 2005, appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on regular basis and was later promoted to the post of Senior Assistant Engineer (SG) in the pay scale of Rs.33100-187800 at Level-9.
In the 227th meeting of Board of Directors, Recruitment and Promotion Rules were approved regarding non-academic staff which was adopted by IIT-Kanpur.
Since, appellant's promotion got affected by the new policy, he approached the university. The Institute Level Grievance Redressal Committee and the Board-Sub Committee held that there was not merit in appellant's claim and he must apply as when posts are advertised, subject to eligibility criteria. Even Board of Governor of IIT-Kanpur rejected appellant's request.
Appellant claimed to have met all eligibility criteria for the next post, however, by adoption of the Rules, the qualification was changed, and it was stated that only applicants at Level-10 of Assistant Executive Engineer rank would be eligible for the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) (reserved for OBCs) & Air-conditioning (UR).
Once the appellant and other similarly situated employees represented before the university, the recruitment process was kept in abeyance. Meanwhile, the post of Director of the institute was taken over by Senior-most Professor, who acting as Officiating Director, published an advertisement for various posts including post of Executive Engineer which various eligibility criteria including at least 5 years of regular clear service at Assistant Executive Engineer level at Level-10.
Appellant filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid advertisement to the extent it advertised post of Executive Engineer and to direct authorities to let appellant participate in the recruitment process. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge holding that Board of Governors had the power to fill up vacancies by direct recruitment. The decision of the Single Judge was challenged by the appellant in special appeal.
Verdict in Special Appeal
Regarding the provisions of the IT Act, 1961, the Court observed that Section 13 entrusts the Board of IIT-Kanpur with powers and responsibilities of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the institute as also all the other powers which have not been provided elsewhere in the Act, Statutes and Ordinances. The Court observed that “the Board is empowered to formulate, approve all rules or regulations for recruitment and/or to lay down the eligibility criteria for academic and non-academic staff of the institute.”
Further, it was observed that Section 25 empowers the Board to appoint academic as well as non-academic staff in any cadre.
The Court framed 2 issues: whether the Court could judicially review qualification prescribed by the employer for direct recruitment or for promotion and whether in absence of challenge to the Rules/Regulations adopted and enacted by the Competent Authority, the Court could deal with challenge to the recruitment process under the Rules.
Perusing the record, the Court observed that the Rules for recruitment of non-teaching staff of IIT-Kanpur and subsequent amendments to the Rules were duly adopted by the Board of Governors of the institute and were implemented by the university. The Court held that the employer, IIT-Kanpur had the power to publish the advertisement with requisite qualifications for the post Executive Engineer, amongst others.
“The present matter relates to the premier institution of the country. The suitability for the job, for which the selection and appointment is to be made, is an area of technical experts of the field and generally the Court does not inhere such expertise and skills to assess the exact suitability and eligibility vis-a-vis selection & appointment had to be made. Generally, the Court cannot embark upon any enquiry by way of judicial review to prescribe, which qualifications would be better qualification for the employer to provide as an essential qualification for the post upon which the selection and appointment has to be made.”
The Court relied on P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, where the Supreme Court held that qualification and other service conditions are a matter of policy which can only be prescribed by the State. It was held that the Court cannot direct the State to prescribe certain conditions and qualifications for appointment. The Apex Court held that the rules regarding appointment could be amended by the State and no employee could claim that such rules and qualification criteria remain the same forever except the benefits already earned.
Further reliance was place on Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar where the Supreme Court held that an employer prescribes the qualifications based upon the needs and interest of the institution and the Court is not fit to “assess expediency or advisability or utility” of such qualifications as may be prescribed.
The Court held that it was not fit to review the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment by the employer, IIT-Kanpur.
The Court observed that the appellant was anyways debarred from participating in the recruitment because of the age bar.
The Court observed that under Rule 6 of IIT Rules, 2018, Board of Governors was permitted to accept candidates through lateral entry and express qualifications for the such entries on the post of Executive Engineer were also laid down, which were not challenged by the appellant.
“As in latin it says Subla Fundamento cadit opus i.e. A foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. Hence till the root cause is not struck down the concequential act cannot be washed away.”
The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and others v. Dr. H.N. Nabachandra Singh and others, Roshan Lal & ors. v. International Airport Authority of India & ors. and Edukanti Kistamma v. S. Venkatareddy wherein it was held that unless the basic order/Rule/Regulation is challenged, challenge to consequential order cannot stand.
Accordingly, the Court held that since the appellant had not challenged the Rules providing for the recruitment process, the consequential recruitment process cannot be interfered with by the Court. The special appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Ram Pratap Singh v. Union of India and 4 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 345 of 2024]
Counsel for Appellant: Avneesh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent: Rohan Gupta