HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7338 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.08.2011 **** Chetanjit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. JS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nakhil K Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5 ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner impugns the selection and appointment of the private respondents as Junior Engineers in the Department of PWD (B&R), Punjab. The private respondents were selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.09.1997 and were given appointment in the year 2001. The petitioner has chosen to challenge their selection and appointment through this writ petition filed in the year 2009 essentially on the ground that the private respondents are ineligible as they do not possess the qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Engineers CWP No.7338 of 2009.doc - 2 – under the “Punjab Department of Public Works (Class-III) Service Rules, 1993 (in short, ‘the 1993 Rules’). (2). The petitioner’s precise case is that the private respondents possess the qualification of ‘Degree in Civil Engineering’ whereas the prescribed qualification is only a “Diploma” in Civil Engineering. The petitioner thus submits that the persons with higher qualification are ineligible in terms of the Rule 1(A)(a) of the Rules ibid which reads as follows:- “8. Method of Appointment and Qualifications – (1) All appointments to service shall be made in the following manner, namely:- (A) in the case of Junior Engineers in the Civil Wing:- (a) Seventy five percent by direct appointment from amongst the candidates who possess a Diploma in Civil Engineering of a recognized institution. (b) twenty five per cent by promotion as under:- xxxx” (Emphasis applied) (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the plea taken by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, CWP No.7338 of 2009.doc - 3 – based upon misinterpretation and misconstruction of the 1993 Rules. (4). The Diploma in Civil Engineering or equivalent qualification is the minimum qualification prescribed by the Competent Authority. The Rule does not and cannot exclude higher qualifications for determining the eligibility. In fact, the question as to whether a candidate possessing Degree in Civil Engineering is eligible for appointment to the post for which Diploma in Engineering is the prescribed qualification, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jyoti KK & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors., JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 85 and it was held that :- “ If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant engineer, degree in electrical engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognized or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication CWP No.7338 of 2009.doc - 4 – that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of sub-engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in electrical engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same faculty.” (Emphasis applied) (5). The other contention that additional marks could not be awarded for ‘Diploma’ as well as ‘Degree’ separately, too is wholly misconceived. The fact that the private respondents possess more than the minimum qualification entitled them to get the marks prescribed for the ‘minimum qualification’ at part with other candidates. Since they are in possession of higher qualification of Degree in Engineering, it is obvious that they were also entitled to additional marks, if any, prescribed for the higher qualification. However, on facts, this question need not be gone into for the reason that even if 3-marks awarded to the private respondents are deducted still they make it to the merit list. CWP No.7338 of 2009.doc - 5 – (6). For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed without going into the question of delay and laches. (7). Ordered accordingly. 24.08.2011 Vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge CWP No.7338 of 2009.doc - 6 –