IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.1319 OF 2011 Date:14.07.2011 Between:- P.Srinivasa Rao and others .. Petitioners And Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.1319 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not accepting the applications from the petitioners, who are possessing graduation in Engineering for the post of Trainee Sub-Engineer notified under impugned Notification No.4/CGM(Adm)/2010, dated 05.01.2011, on the ground that they are not possessing the Diploma in Engineering, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to receive the applications from the petitioners possessing Degree in concerned Engineering for the said post notified in the impugned notification and permit them to appear in the selections for appointment. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners are the land loosers under the Kakatiya Thermal Power Project, Chelpur in Warangal District. The Government acquired nearly 1000 acres in Chelpur village including its hamlet villages for the said purpose assuring that one member out of the land looser family would be provided employment in the Thermal Power Project. Petitioners are possessing degree in Engineering and petitioner Nos.5 and 7 are at present working as Sub Engineers as Contract Labour. Respondent No.2 issued notification, dated 05.01.2011, for filling up posts of Trainee Sub-Engineers from candidates possessing Diploma in Engineering in Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics and Civil subjects against the posts notified. The Sub-Engineer post is a zonal level post carrying scale of pay Rs.11,545-23,115/-. The requisite educational qualifications prescribed for the Trainee Sub Engineer as on 01.01.2011 are as under: Electrical-Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering or its equivalent, Mechanical-Diploma in Mechanical Engineering or its equivalent, Electronics-Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering/Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering/Instrumentation and Control Engineering/Electronics and Control Engineering/Instrumentation Engineering/Electronics Instrumentation and Power/Power Electronics or its equivalent and Civil- Diploma in Civil Engineering or its equivalent. When the petitioners applied through on-line, their applications were not accepted, as the qualifications mentioned by them i.e, Degree in Engineering in concerned disciplines of Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics or Civil in concerned column is not tallying with the Diploma in concerned Engineering Branch or its equivalent. So, they made a representation to the respondents on 11.01.2011 to make a provision for 50% of reservation of vacancies for Trainee Sub- Engineers on par with Junior Plant Attendants and also to make Degree holders in the same discipline eligible for the post of Trainee Sub-Engineer against the vacancies and also referred to the earlier notification, dated 05.11.2010, wherein the requisite qualification for the said post was prescribed as Diploma/Graduation in Electrical Engineering but the respondents have not considered the same nor they accepting the applications from them. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the averments made in the writ petition. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioners are seeking a relief contrary to the conditions stipulated in Notification No.4/CGM(Adm)/2010, dated 05.01.2011. The respondents notified 350 vacancies of Trainee Sub-Engineers, which includes all the branches viz., Electrical, Mechanical and Civil. It is clear from the notification that the said vacancies are meant only for Engineering Diploma Holders in Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics and Civil. At Column No.5 of the notification, it was specifically stated that the candidate should possess only Diploma in Electrical, Diploma in Electronics or equivalent in respect of Electrical, Diploma in Mechanical in respect of Mechanical, Diploma in Electronics and Communication or Instrumentation in respect of Electronics and Diploma in Civil Engineering in respect of Civil. At Column No.7, the selection procedure was stipulated, which prescribes that 30 marks would be allocated against marks obtained in the qualifying examination of Diploma and also weightage marks upto 10 for passing the qualifying examination of Diploma till the date of notification at 2 marks per year. The respondents intended to give certain benefits to the Diploma holders, who are unemployed and also to the contract labour, who are already working in their unit. For this purpose, they have split up the total marks and allocated 30 marks to the Diploma course only and they did not take degree into consideration. In order to get uniformity in the process of selection, they have confined themselves to recruit only Diploma holders, who are also competent to fulfill the nature of duties of a Sub-Engineer. It is their discretion to stipulate the qualification for a particular post and that the petitioners cannot force them to stipulate any other particular qualification and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the educational qualification for the post of Trainee Sub Engineer is Diploma or its equivalent and the petitioners, who are the Graduate Engineers, cannot be denied opportunity to participate in the selection process; that when the minimum educational qualification is prescribed for any post in the service rules, possession of a higher qualification is not a bar to apply for the post in view of the decisions relied upon by him and hence, he prays to accept the applications of the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that the Trainee Sub Engineer post is a basic level post, which is meant only to the Diploma holders; that the regulation would clearly show that diploma holders or its equivalent qualification are only eligible to participate in the selection process; that there are separate category of posts which are meant for the graduate engineers i.e., the Assistant Engineers; that Regulation is not under challenge; that the recruitment process has been effected in terms of the regulations governing the service conditions of the posts advertised and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is when an educational qualification is prescribed for the post notified in pursuance of the notification, whether the candidates possessing higher qualification are eligible to apply for the same or not? 7. Regulation 14 of Part III of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations (for short, ‘Regulations’) reads that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the post and by the method mentioned in Annexure III and Annexure VI unless he possess the qualifications specified therein. As seen from Annexure III, for the post of Sub Engineer/Electrical/Mechanical/ Civil/Telecom, it can be by a direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer and he must have a Diploma in Electrical/Mechanical/Civil/Telecom Engineering or any other equivalent qualification recognised by the Board/ Government of Andhra Pradesh. The regulation which prescribed educational qualification is not challenged before this Court. Admittedly, the petitioners are Engineering Graduates. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed a strong reliance on a decision of this Court reported in District Collector, Anantapur vs. K. Sujatha[1], wherein it is held at Para No.3 as hereunder: “Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners would urge that keeping in view the fact that a particular qualification was notified as minimum qualification, the respondent herein cannot be said to have fulfilled the criteria laid down in the recruitment notification. We are afraid, having regard to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. The State is considered to be a model employer, as has been held by the apex Court in H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India, . It is really curious that the State has taken such an unreasonable stand. Person having a better qualification cannot be denied appointment on the ground that the minimum qualification required is something else. Prescription of a minimum qualification is necessary so that all candidates must hold atleast that qualification. But the same does not mean that a person with a higher qualification would not meet the requirement. In Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah, the Apex Court, while dealing with a case of allotment of Fair-Price Shop, held that preference to an uneducated man over an educated man would amount to allowing premium of ignorance, incompetence and consequent inefficiency. The Apex Court observed that the same would amount to gross arbitrariness resulting in illegal discrimination. Yet again, in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, 2000 SCC (L&S) 305, the Apex Court clearly held that: A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application. We do not think, therefore, that criterion four as laid by the Advisory Committee constituted under the Rules and upheld by the High Court is in any way reasonable or rational. By adopting such a course the High Court has put its stamp of approval to another type of reservation for recruitment to the service which is not permissible. A poor person can certainly acquire qualification equivalent to SSC Examination and not that he cannot go beyond Standard VII. Perhaps by restricting appointment to a candidate having studied only upto Standard VII the High Court may not be encouraging dropouts." He also relied on a decision of this Court reported in R.Venugopal v. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Hyderabad[2], wherein at Para No.13, it is held as under: “Though in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ch.Papanna’s case (supra) holding that rejection of the candidature on the ground of over qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and certainly a disqualification, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Y.Srinivasa Rao’s case (supra) and also in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in P.S.Bhagavan’s case (supra) and the subsequent Division Bench judgment in District Collector, Anantapur’s case (supra), the writ petition is liable to be allowed.” He also relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Ch.Papanna vs. The Personnel Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad[3], wherein at para No.17, it is held thus: “Thus, it is manifest from the above decisions that where over- qualification is not prescribed as a bar for consideration of appointment and if the candidature is rejected on the ground of possessing over-qualification, the same amounts to arbitrariness and therefore illegal discrimination and violative of Articles 14 and 16. Where the management or the employer prescribes minimum qualification as a requirement and in addition to that it prescribes that over-qualification is a bar, in such a case, the rejection of the candidature on the ground of over-qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because the management or the employer has got every right to prescribe qualifications keeping its peculiar needs in view.” Similarly, he also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd.Riazul Usman Gani and others, Appellants v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others, Respondents[4], wherein at para No.20, it is held thus: “If an employee does not perform the duties attached to the post disciplinary proceedings can certainly be taken against him. An employer cannot throw up his hands in despair and devise a method denying appointment to a person who otherwise meets the requisite qualifications on the ground that if appointed, he would not perform his duties. Qualification prescribed is minimum. Higher qualification cannot become a disadvantage to the candidate.” As seen from the above decisions, it is clear that when minimum educational qualifications are prescribed for a post, possession of the higher qualification cannot be a bar for the candidate in applying to the post and ultimately, it is said that such a discrimination would be irrational. Therefore, from the above decisions, it is very clear that when minimum educational qualifications are prescribed for a post, possessing higher qualification by a candidate is not a bar to participate in the process of selection. 9. Part III of Annexure III of the Regulations regarding qualification for Sub Engineer/Electrical/Mechanical/Civil/ Telecom reads as follows: “Must have a Diploma in Electrical/ Diploma/Civil/Telecom Engineering or any other equivalent qualification recognized by the Board/Government of Andhra Pradesh”. If this educational qualification is read with Regulation 14 of Part-III of the Regulations, it is clear that no person shall be eligible to the post unless he possesses the qualifications specified therein. As seen from the notification, educational qualification is Diploma in particular trade or any other equivalent qualification. Therefore, it does not prescribe any minimum educational qualification, but one must possess Diploma in a particular branch, or its other equivalent qualification would necessarily mean that impliedly, the higher qualification is barred. Therefore, only the persons, who are having the Diploma in a particular branch of subject or any other equivalent qualification are only eligible to participate in the process of selection. 10. As seen from the notification, weightage marks have been provided in the following manner: (i) 30 marks will be allocated against marks obtained in the qualifying examination of Diploma (marks secured in Diploma x 30/Total marks in Diploma). (ii) Weightage upto 10 marks will be given for passing of qualifying examination of Diploma upto the date of notification @ of 2 marks for each completed year of passing. So the notification is intended to the candidates, who possess Diploma in Engineering or equivalent qualification. Degree in Engineering is not equivalent qualification to Diploma in Engineering. Admittedly, Degree in Engineering is higher qualification. Must possess Diploma in Engineering or its equivalent does not mean any other higher qualification. It qualifies minimum and maximum education criteria for the posts advertised. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in T.R.Kothandaraman and others vs. Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage BD and others, Respondents[5], wherein at para No.22, it is held thus: “The aforesaid shows that higher educational qualification has relevance insofar as the holding of higher promotional post is concerned, in view of the nature of the functions and duties attached to that post. The classification has, therefore, nexus with the object to be achieved. This apart, history also supports the differentiation sought to be made by the rule in question. We, therefore, uphold the classification as valid.” That decision has no application to the present case on hand. So far as this case is concerned, the classification now sought to be made is not under challenge before this Court. 12. Therefore, if any minimum educational qualification is prescribed for the post of Sub Engineer/Electrical/ Mechanical/Civil/Telecom, then, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners can safely be accepted in view of the authoritative pronouncement of a judgment of the Apex Court on the subject. For the posts advertised, no minimum educational qualification has been prescribed but as seen from the notification, the only qualification for Sub Engineer post must be a Diploma in Engineering in a particular branch or any equivalent qualification. Therefore, the language used in the notification with regard to educational qualifications is very clear that only persons, who are having Diploma in Engineering, shall participate in the process of selection. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 14th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.1319 OF 2011 Date:14.07.2011 AMD [1] 2003 (3) ALT 33 [2] 2003(3) ALT 518 [3] 1996(2)ALT 358 [4] AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 919 [5] (1994)6 Supreme Court Cases 282