LPA No. 580 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 580 of 2010 Date of Decision 29.07.2010 Daya Nand Sharma -----Appellant Versus Haryana Public Service Commission and another ---Respondents LPA No. 619 of 2010 Shri Krishan and others -----Appellants Versus Haryana Public Service Commission and others ---Respondents LPA No. 658 of 2010 Om Prakash and others -----Appellants Versus Haryana Public Service Commission ---Respondent LPA No. 666 of 2010 Dilbag Singh -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents LPA No. 677 of 2010 Dalbir Singh Bidhan and others -----Appellants Versus Haryana Public Service Commission and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate (in LPA No. 580 of 2010) for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Singhal, Advocate (in LPA No. 619 of 2010) for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate (in LPA Nos. 658, 666, 677 of 2010) for the appellant. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for H.P.S.C.-respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? LPA No. 580 of 2010 -2- M.M. Kumar, J. This order shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 619, 658, 666, 677, 580 of 2010 as all the appeals have emerged from a common judgment dated 05.04.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The advertisement dated 03.07.2009 for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the respondent department set out the eligibility of the candidate. They were required to have a Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Electronics/ Electronics and Communication/ Electronics and Tele-Communication/ Electronics & Instrumentation or equivalent qualification from any Foreign University/ Institution duly recognized by All India Council of Technical Education/ Association of Indian Universities with minimum 60% marks (55% marks for SC of Haryana). The appellants are Ex- servicemen and did not have Bachelor of Engineering Degree. They had qualified for Diploma Courses. They claimed before the learned Single Judge that in pursuance of the circular dated 22.07.1977, the Government of India had recognized a diploma in Engineering in appropriate discipline plus 10 years of technical experience in the appropriate field as equivalent to the degree in Engineering. On that basis they had claimed before the learned Single Judge that once they had diploma with more than 10 years of experience equivalent to degree in Engineering. Learned Single Judge rejected the aforesaid contention in para 9 of his judgment by observing as under: “9. In this case, an attempt was also LPA No. 580 of 2010 -3- made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who among the diploma holders had more than 60% marks and whose diplomas were with respective 10 years of experience and argued that they shall be considered as having passed with 60% in Bachelor Degree in Engineering. I am afraid such a kind of extension cannot also avail, for the issue is that an advertisement that requires a pass in Bachelor Degree in Engineering with specified marks of 60%, literally excludes from out of reckoning any possible claim from persons who had merely deemed graduate degrees. I cannot also accede to the plea that the employers were actually laying down an arbitrary condition specifying minimum marks as requisite qualification for consideration, because, for will-nilly the system of assessing merits by marks have come to stay in all walks of life particularly in the matter relating to admission to higher courses and for appointment in open competitions.” Learned Single Judge also found that the appellants failed to implead the concerned department as party-respondent because the Public Service Commission had contended that the advertisement was issued as per requisition made by the department concerned and that they could not have provided for minimum of 60% marks LPA No. 580 of 2010 -4- for General category and any relaxation for S.C. category. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) as well as Sh. H.N. Mehtani, at a considerable length and have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the contention that the Diploma with 10 years experience must be recognized equivalent to degree/qualification. Moreover, question of equivalence is a function which falls within the domain of the Executive Authority. There is no document brought on record showing any such equivalence that might indicate equivalence of diploma with degree and its recognition by the Rules. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance may be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252, wherein it has been held that recognizing certain educational qualification as equivalent to or higher than the prescribed one, involves a policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the Authority vested with the power under any statute. In para 10 of the judgment, the scope of interference by this Court has been discussed and it is limited to examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rationale and reasonable ground or such a decision is arbitrary and is informed by extraneous consideration or mala fide. Mere fact that the appellants had applied and were interviewed would not arm them with any right in view of the aforementioned legal principles. The aforesaid view has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us LPA No. 580 of 2010 -5- (Hon'ble M.M. Kumar, J) is a member i.e. in the case of Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab 2009 (1) S.C.T. 744. The appeals are wholly without merit and do not merit admission. As a sequel to the above discussions, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 29, 2010 Atul