Supreme Court holds appointing authority entitled to accept diploma equivalence in recruitment, restores selections

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard challenges to the termination of appointments to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Lakshadweep Electricity Department, raising the limited question whether diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering were equivalent to the Diploma in Electrical Engineering specified in the recruitment notification.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Kerala High Court, and held that the appointing authority had acted reasonably in treating the appellants' diplomas as equivalent for the purposes of the advertisement. The bench emphasised judicial restraint in recruitment matters and reiterated that courts ordinarily should not substitute their judgment for that of the employer on equivalence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "14. Normally, it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular certificate and say, on the basis of its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received ... to decide whether any such candidate ... is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to participate in the selection process." The Court also noted that "the employer ultimately being the best judge of who should be appointed" where the recruiting authority had taken an informed decision after technical assessment.

Background

The Lakshadweep Electricity Department issued an advertisement dated 03.08.2006 for two posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) requiring a Degree in Electrical Engineering or a Diploma in Electrical Engineering with two years' experience. The successful candidates included appellants who held Diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering; other candidates held Diplomas in Electrical Engineering. The recruiting authority had sought and received a 2003 clarification from the Directorate of Technical Education, Kerala, stating that the Tamil Nadu Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering was recognised by the Government of Kerala and treated as equivalent in the State. After scrutiny, the administration declared the appellants selected and published the select list on 03.09.2008.

Aggrieved candidates challenged the selections before the CAT, which set aside the appointments on 27.01.2010, holding that unstated qualifications could not be read into the advertisement. The Kerala High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by the appellants and directed recasting of the select list to include only candidates with the exact qualification. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court order and ultimately heard the appeals.

On behalf of the appellants, counsel submitted that the syllabi, duration and core substance of the two diplomas were the same and that the employer had rightly treated them as at par after obtaining technical clarification. Counsel for the respondents argued that equivalence must be provided by rules or by explicit stipulation in the advertisement and that deviation from prescribed qualifications was impermissible.

Relying on precedents including Anand Yadav v. State of U.P., Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., and Union of India v. Uzair Imran, the Court applied the settled principle that equivalence is ordinarily a matter for the employer to decide and that courts must exercise restraint unless the employer's decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or unsupported by evidence. The Court found no material to demonstrate arbitrary or improper acceptance of the appellants' qualifications, noted the recruiting authority's prior clarification and assessment, and held that the Tribunal and High Court had taken an unduly technical view. The appeals were allowed, the impugned High Court order dated 20.11.2014 was set aside, and the appointments were restored.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 251; Civil Appeal No. 17308 of 2017 (with C.A. Nos. 17309/2017, 17310/2017, 17311/2017) Case Title: Sajid Khan v. L. Rahmathullah & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shaji P. Chaly (Senior Counsel); Mr. Gaurav Agrawal (Senior Counsel); Mr. Rajeev Mishra; Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi