Can't Allow Candidates Who Contest For Diploma Post Despite Holding Degree To Be Transferred To Cadre Of Degree Holders: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court rejected petitions filed by employees of Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan (“State”) whose transfer from the cadre of Civil Engineers (Diploma Holders) to Civil Engineers (Degree Holders) was revoked, on the ground that such benefit under Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973 (“the Rules”) was not for a candidate who...
Rajasthan High Court rejected petitions filed by employees of Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan (“State”) whose transfer from the cadre of Civil Engineers (Diploma Holders) to Civil Engineers (Degree Holders) was revoked, on the ground that such benefit under Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973 (“the Rules”) was not for a candidate who had both diploma and degree at the time of appointment but rather for those who acquired the degree during service.
“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.”
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta was hearing the petitions filed by Civil Engineers who were appointed in the cadre of diploma holders, and were transferred to the cadre of degree holders, but eventually such transfer was revoked.
State had issued an advertisement notifying recruitment on both the cadres. Since the petitioners had both diploma as well as a degree, they applied under both the categories but ended up getting recruited only under the cadre of diploma holders while failing to clear the recruitment process for the cadre of degree holders.
However, after getting appointed, the petitioners moved applications claiming the benefits under Clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules and were moved to the post of Civil Engineers (Degree holders). This order was eventually revoked by the State which was challenged before the Court.
Rule 6 provided for Methods of Recruitment and Clause (d) of proviso to this Rule laid down that if a diploma holder “attains” the stipulated degree, he was entitled to be appointed to the cadre of Degree Holder.
After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the term “attains” used in the provision was used in the present tense which made the intention of the rule making authority very clear that the stipulated degree should have been acquired by the candidate after being appointed as to the cadre of diploma holders. The Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Dalwadi v State of Gujarat and opined that the Apex Court had also held that the word “attains” meant “acquire” or “reach”.
In this light, the Court ruled that the benefit of the provision could only be provided to such candidate who acquired the stipulated degree after being appointed to the cadre of Diploma cadres, and not the one who already had both at the time of recruitment but failed to get recruitment under the cadre of Degree holders.
The Court stated that if the benefit of the provision was conferred upon the petitioners, it would take away the rights of the unemployed youth having degree since the posts which were otherwise meant to be filled by them by direct recruitment could be occupied by candidates like the petitioners.
“Such movement would be in essence an injustice to all those who did B.E. (Civil/Electrical) and could not fall in the merit of Degree Holders. If looked from another angle, it would create anomalous situation, inasmuch as a person having failed to compete with the degree holders, will by circuitous way move to the stream of degree holders, which stream has better prospects and promotional avenues.”
The Court further opined the provision was inserted in 1973 when there was a lack of engineering colleges while the demand for qualified engineers was large. Hence to meet this gap between supply and demand, diploma holders were allowed on the post, and to encourage expertise, they were given a chance to acquire the stipulated degree while continuing in service, and then sliding them into the stream of Degree Holders.
While holding that this provision had lost its efficacy and utility since engineering colleges were in abundance, the Court observed that,
“No doubt 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.”
Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.
Title: Ram Niwas & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
