Degree Holder Can't Claim Post Reserved For Diploma, If Higher Qualification Is Not Equalised: Patna High Court

Background Facts

The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) advertised for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors (MVIs). The eligibility criteria specified that candidates must have passed the 10th standard and possess a three-year Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. The applicant was an Engineering Graduate. He holds a Bachelor's degree in Engineering. The applicant contended that a Graduate degree in Engineering is a higher qualification. Hence, he would also be entitled to be considered for the job. However the applicant was denied the job.

A writ petition was filed by the applicant challenging the exclusion of Engineering Graduates from being considered for the MVI position. The Single Judge ruled against the applicant, stating that the he did not meet the required Diploma qualification. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed an appeal.

The applicant referenced the Bihar Transport (Technical) Cadre Rules 2003, which prescribe a minimum qualification of a Diploma for the MVI post. He argued that the term “minimum qualification” implicitly includes higher qualifications, such as a Graduate degree in Engineering.

On the other hand, it was argued by the State and BPSC that the qualification requirements were clear and specific, and only candidates with the prescribed Diploma were eligible. They emphasized that statutory rules must be adhered to strictly and that courts should not reinterpret or modify these rules without explicit legislative provisions. The BPSC highlighted that the rules governing the recruitment of MVIs did not provide for equivalence of qualifications. They argued that a Graduate degree in Engineering cannot be automatically equated to or considered superior to a Diploma in the absence of explicit provisions allowing such equivalence.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the legislative intent behind the Bihar Transport (Technical) Cadre Rules 2003, which prescribed the specific qualifications for the MVI post, did not provide provisions for equivalence with higher qualifications.

The case of P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala was relied upon by the court, where it was held by the Supreme Court that for the prescription of TTC qualification, it is a training imparted to teach small children in primary classes, and B.Ed. Degrees cannot be held to be a higher qualification. The case of State of Punjab v. Anita was relied upon by the court, wherein it was held that Post Graduate qualification with B.Ed. was ineligible for appointment as Teachers requiring the minimum qualification of two years Junior Basic Teachers Training.

It was further observed by the court that some judicial precedents allowed the consideration of candidates with higher qualifications (such as Engineering Graduates) for posts that typically require lower qualifications (like a Diploma). However, it was noted by the court that these precedents applied specific provisions where higher qualifications were explicitly recognized or equated with lower qualifications, which was not the case in the present scenario.

The case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court allowed Engineering Graduates to apply for posts requiring a Diploma, recognizing the Graduate degree as a higher qualification. Here the higher qualifications were explicitly recognized and equated with lower qualifications. Similarly, in Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, the Supreme Court allowed candidates with higher qualifications to be considered for posts requiring a Diploma. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that the intent of the rule-makers was not to exclude the degree holders from consideration for the lower post.

It was observed by the court that the principle as laid down in the case of P.M. Latha and Anita was based on peculiar factual circumstances and the rule position that Jyoti K.K. and Puneet Sharma held was different. It was further observed by the court that neither there is a statutory rule nor a promotional post that is entitled to Graduate Engineers as demonstrated by the applicant. It was also noticed that the acquisition of a Diploma is not a necessity for obtaining a Graduate degree, and even a person passing Secondary School can get admission directly to the Graduate Stream of Engineering. So both degrees can't be equated for the purpose of the job.

The case of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi and others v. Aarya K. Babu and another was relied upon by the court, wherein the Supreme Court disapproved of the practice of the courts permitting candidates who do not have the qualifications prescribed to be considered for selection, contrary to the prescription in the rule.

It was noted by the court that there were no specific provisions recognizing higher qualifications. The Single Judge's decision was upheld by the High Court, confirming that the applicant and other Engineering Graduates did not meet the prescribed qualification criteria for the MVI post. The appeal was dismissed, and the importance of adhering to the specific qualifications set out in statutory rules and recruitment notifications was reiterated.

Case No. : LPA No.312 of 2022

Counsel for the Appellant/s : Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate; Pranav Kumar, Advocate; Shristi Sinha, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13; Rajat Kumar Tiwary, AC to AAG-13; Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate