NHAI Technical Posts Require Engineering Degree Despite Experience: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has reinforced the sanctity of educational qualifications in technical appointments, ruling that long-term experience cannot substitute for a mandatory engineering degree required for senior technical roles. In a decisive stance against the retention of promotions secured through invalidated distance education degrees, the Court upheld the reversion of an official, emphasizing that statutory recruitment rules must be strictly followed to ensure public safety and administrative integrity.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar heard the challenge brought by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal had previously quashed a memorandum reverting a regular employee from the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) to Technical Assistant after his B. Tech degree, obtained through distance learning, was cancelled following a landmark Supreme Court directive.

Key Takeaways

Strict Adherence to Qualifications

Educational requirements for technical posts are sacrosanct and cannot be waived or substituted by experience unless the rules explicitly permit such relaxation.

Precedent on Distance Education Degrees

Any career advancement or promotion secured on the basis of engineering degrees obtained via distance education from deemed universities stands recalled as per Supreme Court mandates.

No Approbation and Reprobation

Employees cannot claim eligibility based on a degree and subsequently argue that the same degree is non-essential once it is legally invalidated.

Integrity of Technical Appointments

Allowing unqualified individuals to hold senior engineering posts compromises public safety and the technical rigor of national infrastructure projects.

Legal Validity of Educational Requirements

The Court examined the interpretation of the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996. It observed that for technical cadres, the requirement of a degree in Civil Engineering is a fundamental eligibility criterion. The Bench rejected the argument that experience could override the lack of a formal degree, noting that such a "human approach" cannot bypass statutory rules formulated under Constitution of India, 1950.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In principle, the eligibility conditions set out in an advertisement or in the rules cannot be diluted by holding that the absence of the prescribed educational qualifications can be made good by relying on experience. The 1996 regulations do not, either expressly or impliedly, permit such a construction... Such tortious interpretation of the regulation would result in an absurd consequence, which cannot be countenanced."

Referring to State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir ( "(1998) 6 SCC 165": 1998 CaseBase(SC) 479), the Court reiterated that the requirement of possessing a degree or Diploma in Engineering applies to both direct recruits and promotees, and the experience gained cannot be equated with the necessary educational qualifications.

Compliance with Supreme Court Mandates

The Bench emphasized that the NHAI was duty-bound to follow the directions issued in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd v. Rabi Shankar Patro ( "(2018) 1 SCC 468": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 876). In that case, the Apex Court had declared that degrees obtained through distance education mode from certain universities stand cancelled and all consequential benefits, including promotions, must be withdrawn.

The Court has following directions:

"For all the above reasons, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the Tribunal’s impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2025 and restore the Memorandum dated 27.06.2024 reverting the 1st respondent from the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) to the post of Technical Assistant. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any order for costs."

Ratio

Educational qualifications prescribed by statutory recruitment rules for technical posts are mandatory and cannot be substituted by work experience. Courts and Tribunals lack the authority to relax these essential qualifications under the guise of a sympathetic or "human approach," as doing so would violate the principle of equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and amount to unauthorized amendment of statutory provisions. Furthermore, any promotion secured on the basis of a degree subsequently invalidated by a superior court must be recalled in accordance with judicial mandates.

Background

The respondent was initially appointed as a Draftsman (later Technical Assistant) and obtained a B. Tech degree through distance learning from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth. Based on this degree, he was promoted to Manager (Technical) and subsequently Deputy General Manager (Technical). However, following the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd v. Rabi Shankar Patro ( "(2018) 1 SCC 468": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 876), which invalidated such degrees, NHAI issued a reversion order.

The respondent successfully challenged the initial reversion before the High Court in an earlier round due to a breach of natural justice. Following a fresh show-cause notice and consideration of his representation, NHAI issued a second reversion memorandum on 27.06.2024. The CAT Patna (Ranchi Bench) quashed this reversion, misinterpreting previous High Court observations.

The NHAI then approached the High Court, relying on State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir ( "(1998) 6 SCC 165": 1998 CaseBase(SC) 479), Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran ( "AIR 2015 SC 545": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 744), and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science and Another versus Bikartan Das and Others ( "(2023) 16 SCC 462": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 1076). The High Court concluded that the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the record by misreading the 1996 Regulations and failing to enforce the binding directions of the Supreme Court.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P. (S) No. 2614 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:28895-DB
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India & Ors. v. Purna Chandra Kahili & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Indrajit Sinha, Advocate; Mr Kartikeya Asthana, Advocate; Ms Ashwini Priya, Advocate; Mr Tushar Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate; Mr Abhishek Abhi, Advocate; Ms Tanya, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(JHKD) 3162