'Unreasonable': Patna High Court Sets Aside Rule Reserving 40% Junior Engineer Posts For Polytechnic Diploma Holders From Govt Institutions Alone

The Patna High Court has set aside the law reserving 40% seats for the post of Junior Engineer for candidates holding Diploma certificate from the Government Polytechnic Institutes within the State of Bihar.

A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S. Kumar held that classification to grant reservation is reasonable if it includes all persons who are "similarly situated" concerning the purpose of the law. It remarked,

"Classification must be founded on some reasonable grounds, which distinguishes persons who are grouped and grounds of distinction must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule."

Holding the impugned rule to be arbitrary and discriminatory, the Bench said it fails to understand how 40% of institutional reservations is confined/restricted to diploma holders from Government Polytechnic Institute and why it excludes diploma holders from private affiliated polytechnic institute, when examining body to conduct the selection test for admission in the polytechnic institute as well as conducting semester examination and grant of diploma certificate are the same.

The petitioners in the instant matter have completed diploma courses from different polytechnic institutes situated in Bihar in different academic sessions. They were granted a certificate or diploma by the State Board of Technical Institute, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Water Resources Department of Bihar, which is a nodal agency at the Government level, notified the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Clause 5 of said Rule provided that provision of Bihar Reservation of vacancies in Post and Services Act, 1991 and the Rules made thereunder shall be applicable to the appointment and promotion in the cadre.

It is submitted by the petitioner that under the 2015 Rules, there was no provision for institutional reservation for the candidates passing out from the polytechnic institutions located within the State. However by the amending Act of 2017, a provision for 40% institutional for candidates passing out from the State of Bihar. However, the said reservation was confined to the candidates passing out from government polytechnic institutes only and those belonging to affiliated polytechnic institutions were excluded from the purview of the reservation. The grievance of the petitioner arises out of this denial.

The petitioners argue that in 2015 when they took admitted to the private affiliated polytechnic institute, the older Recruitment Rules were in vogue. They did not provide any institutional reservation, and thus after passing out they were eligible to be appointed to the said post. In 2017 the amendment has been detrimental to the petitioner, reducing their chances of being employed.

The relief in the case of Binoy Viswam v. Union of India & Ors argues that the law does not permit the employer to apply the rules differently concerning persons similarly situated. She relied on State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v. U.S.V Balram etc and argued that the sub-classification in the instant case is not based upon any intelligible differential and doesn't have any nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.

The Court expressed surprise that when the 2015 Recruitment Rules were satisfactorily working and appointments were being made without any controversy or complaint or grievances, what prompted/prevailed upon the government to bring 2017 Amendment Rules. It remarked,

"...when skilled man power is the need of the hour and demand of skilled man power cannot be fulfilled by government polytechnic institutes and incentives were provided by Government of Bihar for opening private affiliated polytechnic institutes."

The Apex Court has approved/permitted 50% of institutional reservation in the matter of admission/employment to the students, who have passed out from the technical institutions situated within the State but has not made any distinction between Government Technical Institutions and Private Technical Institutions.

It observed that the effect of 2017 amending Rules will be that even petitioners being more meritorious and have scored higher marks, will be deprived of appointment only for the reason that they have obtained diploma certificate from the affiliated polytechnic institute, whereas, candidates having lower merit, will get an appointment. The differential treatment will only be for the reason that he has obtained a diploma certificate from a government polytechnic institute, although a diploma certificate has been granted by the same institute, i.e., the State Board of Technical Institute, Government of Bihar, Patna.

Noting that the Government of Bihar has granted 50% of Institutional Reservation in the matter of admission/employment concerning degree holders who have passed from Medical Colleges/Engineering Colleges/ Veterinary Colleges within the State of Bihar, the Court noted that 40% of institutional reservation in case of diploma holders of Government Polytechnic Institute only excluding petitioners, is discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It held Rule 4(A) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil Cadre Recruitment) Amendment, 2017 as arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable.

Case Title: Vinit Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar and other connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 11

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order