THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P. No.10217 of 2009 Dt:28-09-2010 Between : E. Sridhar & others ..Petitioners And Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam & others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri J. Sudheer Counsel for respondents : Sri V. Ravinder Rao < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P. No.10217 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are working as Chargemen, or Senior Chargemen, as the case may be, in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. Over a period, they have acquired certain qualifications, such as, Associate Membership of the Indian Institute of Welding (AMIIW), Graduate qualification from Institute of Industrial Engineering, etc. The next higher post is Management Trainee (Technical). There are two channels of appointment to that post: One is through direct recruitment, and the other is by restricting the consideration to internal candidates. A circular dated 30-04-2009 was issued by the respondents, inviting applications to fill 45 vacancies of Management Trainees (Technical), earmarked for internal candidates. In the eligibility criteria, not only the qualifications, viz., Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent in Engineering or Technology from recognized Universities or Institutes in various disciplines, ranging from Ceramic to Metallurgy; was mentioned, but also a note was added, to the effect that candidates holding the qualification of AM-IIW are not eligible. The petitioners feel aggrieved by that stipulation. It is urged that the degree was recognized by the Government of India and it was equated to any Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering. The petitioners further contend that the respondents themselves recognized the said degrees, in the context of sanctioning increments. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit. According to them, the discipline of welding does not exist independently, at the level of Management Trainees (Technical) and the AMIIW can be recognized as equivalent, only in respect of posts in that discipline. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in refusing to recognize the degrees, held by the petitioners, is discriminatory in nature. He contends that, when the Central Government has recognized such degrees as equivalent to Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering, there is no basis to exclude from consideration, the candidates possessing such degrees. Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that AMIIW can be recognized, if only a post with specialization in welding, for which, Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering is the minimum qualification; is being filled up. He contends that it is always open for an employer to decide the nature of establishment as well as the qualifications, to be held by candidates for such posts. Learned counsel submits that the recognition of those degrees for the purpose of extending the benefit of increment does not have any relevance, in the present context. It is also his case that, even that benefit was restricted to such degrees, which have any relevance to the post, held by an incumbent. The respondents proposed to fill 45 vacancies of Management Trainees (Technical), exclusively by internal candidates. The eligibility criteria prescribed for that post, is mentioned in the notification dated 30-04-2009, as under: “Eligibility Criteria: A) Qualification:- Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in Engineering or Technology from a recognized University/Institute in the disciplines of CERAMICS / CHEMICAL / CIVIL / COMPUTER SCIENCE/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/METTALURGY with minimum 50% of marks (40% for SC/ST candidates). Candidates with MCA (3 years course) from a recognized University/Institute with minimum 50% of marks (40% for SC/ST candidates) may also apply in Computer Science / Information Technology discipline. Following qualifications are not eligible: Associate Membership of Indian Institute of Welding (AMIIW); Graduate qualification in Industrial Engineering from Indian Institute of Industrial Engineering; PGDCA and Diploma from DOEACC”. The respondents have not only indicated the requisite qualification, but also excluded the candidates holding certain degrees, such as AMIIW. Addition of such a clause was almost precautionary in nature. Further, in the previous years, when no such stipulation was made, the respondents faced certain complications, and litigation persisted. The petitioners contend that the action of the respondents amounts to discrimination. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ordain that the State or its instrumentality cannot discriminate between persons, who are equally placed, in the context of employment, promotion, etc. An inseparable facet of this very principle is that, persons, who were placed unequally, cannot claim benefit under those provisions. In the context of filling of posts, particularly those, which are technical in nature, an employer has the prerogative to stipulate the relevant qualifications. A Court cannot sit in judgment over such issues. Howsoever akin the other qualifications may appear, the one, stipulated by the employer, and the right and liberty of the employer to insist on a specific qualification; cannot be found fault with. The respondents are conscious of the nature of functions to be discharged by the Management Trainees (Technical), and have accordingly prescribed the qualifications. The petitioners cannot challenge the discretion of the respondents, in this regard. The petitioners placed reliance upon a gazette notification dated 18-11-2000, issued by the Government of India, through which AMIIW was equated to a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering. This equation has limited purpose to serve. Whenever a post connected with the specialization of Welding is notified, and a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering is prescribed, as a qualification for it, the persons holding AMIIW can be considered for such post. The equation is not universal. For example, if a post of Civil Engineer is notified and the qualification of B.E (Civil) is prescribed, a person holding AMIIW cannot claim that, he should be considered for it. The respondents provided for incentives for its employees to acquire qualifications, while in service. In the circular dated 30-08-1997, AMIIW was recognized as one such, and holders thereof are extended two increments. This was revised through another circular dated 13-11-2007. It was mentioned that the benefit would be available, only when the qualification acquired by an employee is relevant/useful for his post, which, in turn, must be certified by the head of the department. When such is the case, the petitioners cannot insist that the qualification of AMIIW is recognized for all posts, including for appointment to the post of Management Trainee (Technical). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.28-09-2010. KO