Lakshadweep Electricity Department (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002 – An advertisement for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was issued – The required qualification was specified to be a Degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognized university, or a Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized institution with two years of experience – The appellants are all Diplomaholders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, whereas the respondents hold a Diploma in Electrical Engineering – Pursuant to the recruitment process, the appellants were declared selected – Aggrieved, the respondents filed OA before the CAT – CAT set aside the selection of appellants and held that unstated qualifications cannot be read as a part of those which are specified – Writ petitions by the appellants were dismissed by the High Court – Sustainablity:
Held: The burden to show that the recruiting authority accepted the qualifications of the appellants illegally or arbitrarily was on the respondents who had approached the CAT by filing OAs – There is nothing on record to show that they had adduced any convincing material evidence to prove that the qualifications prescribed are very different from the qualifications possessed by the appellants – On the other hand, the employer has indicated the efforts made by it in satisfying that the qualifications are equivalent and that Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering is the same as the qualification prescribed in the advertisement – The entire case of the respondents is based on the difference in nomenclatures of the two diplomas which stops there and has nothing to do with the core substance of the courses, including teaching, duration, curriculum or the pedagogy – 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 – In this view of the matter the decisions of the CAT and that of the High Court are not sustainable in law. [Paras 22, 23, 24]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Punjab University v. Narinder Kumar (1999) 9 SCC 8 (1980) 3 SCC 202. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.