Holding

Degree holders are eligible for appointment to the Junior Engineer (Electrical) post, as the recruitment rules contain a specific sub‑quota for them and the 2020 amendment clarifies that higher qualifications may be considered.

Summary

The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission advertised 222 Junior Engineer (Electrical) posts, specifying a minimum qualification of matriculation with a diploma. Degree‑holders applied, arguing that a higher qualification should satisfy the minimum requirement, while diploma‑holders contended that only diploma holders were eligible. The High Court held that a degree does not constitute a higher qualification in the same channel and excluded degree‑holders. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the recruitment rules, noting a 5% sub‑quota for candidates who possessed a degree before joining as Junior Engineers and a similar quota for those acquiring a degree during service, and considered the 03‑06‑2020 amendment that expressly allowed higher qualifications. The Court concluded that the rules intended to include degree‑holders, and that the amendment, being clarificatory, applies retrospectively. Consequently, the HPSEB was directed to process the applications of degree‑holders and issue a final selection list. The appeals were allowed and the writ petition was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering is a higher qualification that satisfies the minimum requirement of matriculation with diploma for the Junior Engineer (Electrical) post.
Whether the recruitment rules' 5% sub‑quota for degree‑holders indicates eligibility of degree‑holders for the Junior Engineer post.
Whether the 03‑06‑2020 amendment to the recruitment rules, though prospective, is clarificatory and therefore applicable to the pending recruitment.

Subjects

service lawrecruitment eligibilityhigher qualificationminimum qualificationpromotional quotaclarificatory amendmentretrospective effectpublic employer discretion

Judgment

[2021] 4 S.C.R. 351 351

PUNEET SHARMA & ORS. ETC A
v.
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LTD. & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No (S). 1318-1322 of 2021)
B
APRIL 07, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment – Eligibility – Himachal Pradesh
Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC), acting on the requisition sent
by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., (HPSEB) C
advertised 222 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) – Degree-
holders in the concerned discipline approached the High Court in
writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed educational
qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum (and
advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration D
– The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argued that the
qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor
can be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the
basis of the advertisement issued by HPSSC – Eligibility of degree
holders for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical)
under the relevant recruitment rules – Held: The higher post of E
Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer) has nearly
2/3rds (64%) promotional quota – Amongst these individuals, those
who held degrees before appointment as a Junior Engineers are
entitled for consideration in a separate and distinct sub-quota,
provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a F
prescribed period – This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it
only shows the intent of the rule makers was not to exclude degree
holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers
– In addition to these considerations, an amendment to the rules
was made on 03.06.2020 declaring that those with higher
qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for G
appointment – This amendment was brought in to clear all doubts
and controversies and, in that sense, the amending provisions should
be deemed to have been inserted from inception – Thus, respondent
HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants,
H
351
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A including the degree holders who participated, and depending on
the relative merits, proceed to issue the final selection list of all
successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc.
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v.
Anit Kumar Das 2020 SCC On Line SC 897; Zile Singh
B v. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 3 Suppl.
SCR 400; Vijay v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 6 SCC
289 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 81; Manish Kumar v. Union
of India (2019) 8 SCC 416: [2019] 10 SCR 381 – relied
on.
C P.M. Latha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2003) 3
SCC 541 : [2003] 2 SCR 653; Yogesh Kumar & Ors v.
Government of NCT Delhi & Ors (2003) 3 SCC 548 :
[2003] 2 SCR 662; State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2
SCC 170 : [2014] 14 SCR 819; Zahoor Ahmad Rather
v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 : [2018] 14
D SCR 1082 – distinguished.
Jyoti KK v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
15 SCC 596; State of Uttarakhand and others v. Deep
Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557 :
[2013] 17 SCR 1016; Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of
E Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 : [2015]
12 SCR 810; Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors 2019 (6) SCC 362 :
[2019] 7 SCR 94; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal
Office, Kochi & Ors v. Aaraya K. Babu & Anr (2019) 8
F SCC 587 : [2019] 11 SCR 627; Himachal Pradesh Staff
Selection Commission & Ors v. Pawan Thakur 2019
(3) Shim. L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v. State of HP
& Ors (CWP No. 161/2019); Avinash Koundal v.
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No.
1155/2020); Govt of A.P. v. P. Dalip Kumar 1993 (2)
G SCC 310 : [1993] 1 SCR 435; A.K Raghumani Singh
& Ors v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors 2000 (4) SCC 30
: [2000] 2 SCR 943; CHD v. Usha Kheterpal Waie 2011
(9) SCC 645 : [2011] 12 SCR 398 – referred to.

H
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 353
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.

Case Law Reference A
(2010) 15 SCC 596 referred to Para 4
[2013] 17 SCR 1016 referred to Para 4
[2014] 14 SCR 819 distinguished Para 4
[2015] 12 SCR 810 referred to Para 4 B
[2018] 14 SCR 1082 distinguished Para 4
[2019] 7 SCR 94 referred to Para 4
[2019] 11 SCR 627 referred to Para 4
C
[1993] 1 SCR 435 referred to Para 5
[2000] 2 SCR 943 referred to Para 7
[2011] 12 SCR 398 referred to Para 7
[2003] 2 SCR 653 distinguished Para 22
D
[2003] 2 SCR 662 distinguished Para 22
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 400 relied on Para 33
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 81 relied on Para 34
[2019] 10 SCR 381 relied on Para 35
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1318-
1322 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2020 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 138/2020, CWPOA No.
3601/2019, CWPOA No. 3633/2019, CWPOA No. 6534/2019, CWPOA F
No. 6252/2020.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1323-1324 of 2021 and Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 1028 of 2020
G
Vikas Mahajan, AAG, Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kaveeta
Wadia, Rohit Prasad, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha
Vij, Vinod Sharma, Binod Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar, Rahul Sateeja,
Prabhas Bajaj, Samir Ali Khan, Advs. for the appearing parties.

H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel, the appeals and petition
were heard finally.
2. Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and
B Electronics Engineering is technically a higher qualification than a diploma
in that discipline and, whether degree holders are eligible for appointment
to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment
rules, is the issue that falls for decision in these appeals arising out of a
common judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court1. As is evident,
C this issue is not novel and has an almost endemic tendency requiring
judicial attention, albeit in myriad and diverse contexts.
3. The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection commission (“HPSSC”
hereafter), acting on the requisition sent by the Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board Ltd., (“HPSEB” hereafter) advertised 222 posts of
Junior Engineer (Electrical- hereafter referred to as “JE”) on 27.06.2018.
D
Degree-holders in the concerned discipline applied for the post; after
qualifying the written examination, they were called for verification of
documents but the final result was not declared. They approached the
High Court in writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed
educational qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum
E (and advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration.
The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argued that that the
qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor can
be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the basis of the
advertisement issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection
Commission. The HPSEB adopted a neutral position; however, it
F highlighted that per the applicable regulations, the minimum essential
qualification provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.)
was “matriculation with Diploma in Electrical/ Electronics/
Electronics and Communication/ Computer Science from the
recognized Institution/ Board/University duly recognized by the
Central or State Government”. HPSEB further stated that the HPSSC
G could not traverse beyond the regulations, and was bound to make
recruitments in accordance with them. The HPSSC, which issued the
1
In CWP No. 138/2020, CWPOA No. 3601/2019 and CWPOA No. 3633/2019 filed by
the degree-holders (hereafter ‘degree-holders’) claiming the right of consideration, and
CWPOA No. 6534/2019 and CWPOA No. 6252/2020 have been filed by the
H diploma-holders (“diploma-holder”) opposing the claim of the degree-holders.
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 355
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

advertisement and conducted the selection, opposed the petitions and A
asserted that degree holders could not be considered for recruitment.
4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court considered the
parties’ submissions, the position in the recruitment rules, and various
decisions of this court2 besides its own decisions3, and concluded that:
“40. It would be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has B
categorically held that normal rule would be that candidate
with higher qualification is deemed to be fulfilled the lower
qualification prescribed for the post. But that higher
qualification has to be in the same channel, which is not the
position in the present case. Therefore, the guiding factor C
while considering the case of higher qualification is that it
must be in the same line. The degree in engineering is not in
the same line as diploma in engineering and it, therefore,
cannot be considered to be a higher qualification.
41. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, a D
Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering are two
distinct qualifications and a degree in the field in question
cannot be viewed as a higher qualification when compared
to Diploma in that field.
Consequently, the degree holder petitioners cannot be E
permitted to urge that they possess higher qualification which
would meet the requirement of specific qualifications specified
in the rules or advertisement.
42. In addition to the aforesaid, it would be noticed that the
respondent- Electricity Board has itself not considered the
F
degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical & Electronics
Engineering to be superior to the diploma and rather treated
2
Jyoti KK v Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) 15 SCC 596; State of Uttarakhand
and others vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557; State of Punjab
v Anita {(2015) 2 SCC 170} Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v State of Jammu and Kashmir
&Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 Zahoor Ahmad Rather v Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad {(2019) 2
G
SCC 404; Maharashtra Public Service Commission, v Sandeep Shriram Warade&ors
2019 (6) SCC 362; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Kochi &Ors v Aaraya
K. Babu &Anr (2019) 8 SCC 587
3
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission &Ors v Pawan Thakur 2019 (3) Shim.
L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v State of HP & ors (CWP No. 161/2019); AvinashKoundal
v Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No. 1155/2020) H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A these to be two separate and distinct qualifications and that
is why it vide notification dated 03.06.2020 has amended the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior
Engineer (Electrical/Junior Engineer (IT) Class -III (Non-
Gazetted) in the following manner….”
B Arguments of the degree holders
5. Ms. Kavita Wadia, appearing for the degree holder appellants,
contended that the expression “minimum”4 was deliberately used without
any bar under the rules and did not prevent appointment of degree holders
to the post of JE (Elect.) in HPSEB, and that diploma was only a minimum
C requirement. This, she argued is established beyond doubt from Clause
11 of the Rules for appointment to higher promotional post of Assistant
Engineers (Elect.) where under 5% quota is provided for those who
possessing degree at the time of their appointment as JE (Elect.) and
5% separately for those who acquired degree during their service as JE
(Elect.) after their confirmation. She relies on the decision of this court
D in Govt of A.P. vs P. Dalip Kumar5 which held that the expression
‘minimum’ entitles the employer to choose a person with higher
qualification. A minimum acts as a cut-off filter for the same, and does
not debar recruitment of higher qualified candidates.
6. Ms. Wadia submits that the arguments of diploma holders, i.e.
E that the “with” in the rules, is disjunctive (in column 7) - while providing
that the qualification stipulated would be “Minimum Matriculation with
diploma in electrical engineering/electrical & Electronics
Engineering ...”-defies logic because if ‘with’ were disjunctive and
expression ‘minimum’ was used for making matriculation as a minimum
F educational requirement, then there was no need to use the expression
“minimum” since to pursue the diploma course a candidate has to have
passed matriculation as is reflected in the requirements for admission to
diploma courses in prospectuses of government colleges. In other words,
4
Occurring in the rules, (The HPSEB amendments in Column – 2, 7 & 10 of the
Recruitment and Promotion regulations to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.) Notified
G by notification No. HPSEC (SECTT) R&E/106-10/2006-93342-562 dated 13.12.2006
and further amended by Notificaiton No. HPSEC (SECTT)R&E/106-10/2010-22792-
991 dated 25.05.2010) which read as follows:
“Minimum matriculation with diploma in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronics Engineering from a recognized institution/ Board University duly
recognized by the Central/State Government for JE (Elect.) post.”
5
H 1993(2)SCC 310 (Ref. Para 13 and 15)
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 357
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

contends Ms. Wadia, the minimum qualification would only be A
matriculation in that case, defeating the purpose of the rule, which is
that those diploma holders with matriculation would be considered as
possessing the minimum or threshold qualification. It is submitted that
“minimum” was intentionally used without any bar under the Rules
concerning the appointment of degree holders to the Post of JE (Elect.)
in HPSEB, making diploma as only a minimum requirement. This is B
established beyond doubt from Clause 11 of the Rules for appointment
to higher promotional post of Assistant Engineers (Elect). The expression
‘minimum’ entitles the employer to choose a person with higher
qualification as ‘minimum’ acts as a cut off filter for the same and does
not debar recruitment of those who are higher qualified. C
7. It is also argued that the term “with” in Clause 7, (reproduced
above) is adjunctive in the said group of words, since it adds to the
meaning of a sentence but when removed, makes no harm to its grammar.
As a noun, an adjunctive joins two components of same weight such as
co-ordinating conjunctions. It is further urged that, the decision in A.K
Raghumani Singh & ors v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors 6 is inapplicable D
since the issue there was whether experience required with the
qualification equivalent to degree was subsequent to attaining the degree
or prior to it. To have held that the experience was to be attained after
acquiring the degree would have led to “with” being read as “subsequent
to”. Further, this court held that “with” has to be contextually interpreted E
and was to be a disjunctive in the context of the said rule. It is argued,
that in the present case, if the term were to be interpreted contextually
to mean that the diploma would not be a minimum while matriculation
would be, - a construction that renders the expression ‘minimum’ useless,
for diploma cannot be pursued without matriculation and at the same
time renders otiose the co-related Clause 11(v). This is contrary to F
purposive interpretation of the Rules, which ought to apply to gather the
intention of the lawmaker. The appellant relies on CHD V. Usha
Kheterpal Waie 7 where this court observed that so long as the
qualification prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has
a rational nexus with the function and duties attached to the post, and
are not violative of the provisions of Constitution or the statute and Rules, G
it must be upheld. Counsel submitted that the impugned judgment fell
into error in distinguishing, and not following Jyoti K.K8.
6
2000(4) SCC 30
7
2011 (9) SCC 645
8
Supra, note 2 H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A 8. It was lastly argued that the High Court erred in applying the
judgment of this court in Zahoor Ahmad (supra) since it pertained to
appointments to the Post of Technician III which is relatable more to
field jobs, and restricted the consideration of ‘ITI’ Certificate holders
for the said Post to the exclusion of diploma holders. In the present case,
the relevant post is a higher post of JE (Elect.) of which the promotional
B
post is that of AE (Elect.). Also, in Zahoor Ahmad (supra) no expression
viz “minimum” was used in the Rules and the same was mentioned in a
note in the advertisement therein, which was interpreted by this court. It
was lastly urged that it is not in dispute that the appointing authority
cannot defy the rules or make appointments and, or support a view
C contrary to the governing and applicable rules. However, in the present
case the applicable rules ought to be read meaningfully, purposively and
in a way that is not destructive of the entire scheme and balance sought
to be maintained in the Rules, keeping in mind the needs of the posts and
the State as well as domiciles. It is submitted that the interpretation of
the earlier rules and the 2020 Rules in Para 40 to 42 of the impugned
D
order is destructive and does complete violence to the intent of the rule
makers.
9. On behalf of the contesting respondents, i.e. the diploma holders,
Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel requested this court not to
interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. It is submitted
E that the expression “minimum” is used with the academic qualification,
i.e. matriculation and not the essential technical qualification, viz. a
diploma. A diploma in electrical engineering can be obtained after pursuing
a three years course. That should be preceded by a matriculation or
after completing a two years study- after 10 th standard in school.
F Therefore, a candidate to be eligible should have obtained a diploma
after matriculation or after 10+2. This clearly eliminated degree holders
from the zone of eligibility.
10. It was argued that the use of “with” between minimum
“matriculation” and diploma operates as a disjunctive. It cannot be read
G with the word diploma. It is submitted that only diploma holders such as
the contesting respondents could be considered for selection; their
selections were finalized on 02.09.2020 and the select list was prepared
by the Commission. Having fulfilled the eligibility conditions and after
getting selected through a valid and legal selection process, the entire
recruitment process was valid. Accordingly, such of the contesting
H
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 359
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

respondents who qualified in the exam and were successful deserved to A
be appointed.
11. Learned counsel relied upon the relevant rules to submit that
direct recruitments are made to select category of posts by the Board,
i.e. the Sub-Station Attendant, Electrician and Lineman for whom the
essential educational qualifications are matriculation with ITI. For these B
categories of posts, there was conscious change in the rules with effect
from 03.05.2018 when the words “or any other higher qualification
in the same trade” were deleted. Thus, from 03.05.2018 diploma holders
were ineligible for consideration for the post of Sub-Station Attendant,
Electrician and Lineman. Secondly, for the post of Junior Engineer
(Electrical), the essential qualification – which is under challenge, is C
reserved only for diploma holders. Thirdly, direct recruitment is possible
for Assistant Engineers with regular/full time degree in electrical or
electronic engineering or AMIE or those with full time computer science
and electronics and electrical engineering or its equivalent. Therefore,
diploma holders cannot be directly recruited either in the lower grade of D
Sub-Station Attendants with effect from 03.05.2018 or as Assistant
Engineers.
12. It is pointed out that 15 government polytechnic colleges offer
diploma courses in Himachal Pradesh whereas only three government
colleges offer degree courses in electrical engineering. The student intake E
in the diploma course college is as much as 400, whereas the intake in
degree courses in electrical engineering in government colleges is 170
students. Keeping this in mind, if the degree holders were permitted to
compete with diploma holders, the latter would suffer severely and would
be disadvantaged.
F
13. It is submitted that a close look at the recruitment rules for the
HPSEB would further reveal that even in respect of higher posts of
Assistant Engineer, degree holders are entitled to 36% direct recruitment;
diploma holders are entitled to be promoted in a quota of 64%. The
relevant portions of the recruitment rules, it is submitted indicate the
following: G
[(i) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station)/ Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/Junior
Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Junior
Engineer (Telephone)/Foreman in the trade concerned, who
H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A are Diploma Holder with 7 years’ service in the grade, to the
extent of 40%
(ii) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station)/ Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/ Junior
Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Junior
B Engineer (Telephone)/ Foreman in the trade concerned, i.e.
persons who are ITI qualified having 12 years’ service in the
trade.
(b) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station)/ Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/ Junior
C Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Junior
Engineer (Telephone)/ Foreman in the trade concerned, i.e.
non – ITI holders with 15 years’ service in the grade (a) + (b)
= 10%.
(iii) From amongst those persons who pass/acquire the
D qualification of AMIE (Section A & B) or who acquire Full
time/Regular Degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science Engineering.
Electronics & Communication Engineering & Information
Technology in service after confirmation to service to the extent
of 5%.
E
(iv) Drawing Staff
Circle Head Draftsman with diploma in Electrical Engineering
or Diploma Certificate of draftsmanship from a recognized
institute with 5 year service in the grade having which 10
F years’ service as Draftsman/ Circle Head Draughtsman and
with combined 15 years’ service in the Draftsman Cadre: 4%
(v) Before joining the service as JE who possess Regular/
Full time degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronic Engineering/ Computer Sciences Engineering
Electronics and Communication Engineering & Information
G
Technology from a recognised University approved by AICTE,
Ex Servicemen who have the relevant qualification
equivalence to a recognised degree in Electrical Engineering
or Electrical & Electronic Engineering stream/ discipline
recognized by Govt of India or person who possess AMIE
H
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 361
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

qualification in above stream/ discipline from Institute of A
Engineers (India Calcutta) after confirmation of service =
5%.]
14. It is submitted that the break-up of promotional quota shown
with that of the total promotional quota show that 59% is clearly set out
for diploma holders and those Junior Engineers having a degree, can B
apply in the 5% quota. This also implies that some degree holders can be
appointed provided they also had a diploma. Reliance is placed upon
certain extracts of a seniority list, setting out names of nine individuals,
who have both diploma and B. Tech /AMIE qualifications. It is submitted
that such individuals were recruited not on the basis of degree
qualifications but rather because they held the requisite diploma C
qualifications.
15. It is submitted furthermore that there is nothing in the
recruitment rules, either express or implied, which permitted the state
authorities to consider and process the candidature of those possessing
degrees in electrical engineering but not possessing diploma. It is D
submitted that the impugned judgment quite correctly surmised that the
decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) was no longer a binding authority in view
of the later judgment of this Court in Anita (supra) and Zahoor Ahmad
Rather (supra). Those decisions held that the prescription of a minimum
qualification does not (absent given compelling circumstances) permit E
candidates possessing higher qualifications in the discipline, to apply and
be considered for appointment.
16. The HPSEB submits that the rule in question should be so
interpreted and applied to permit degree holders a chance at selection. It
is submitted that any interpretation of rules to exclude better qualified F
persons is irrational and robs the employer the chance of choosing a
better qualified candidate. It is also argued that the post of Junior Engineer
(Electrical) is technical and public interest demands that the interpretation
of the rule extends consideration to someone holding degree.
17. Counsel for the HSEB argued that it is the inherent right of G
the employer to seek out better qualified individuals for public appointment;
furthermore equivalence of qualification is not a matter for the courts to
determine. HSEB argued that the High Court in the present case decided
that a degree is not a better qualification than a diploma, without any
expert view and contrary to settled law. It further argued that the
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A notification dated 03.06.2020 is an outcome of an attempt to rationalize
the recruitment norms throughout the State Government for technical
posts in all departments and is an outcome of an exercise beginning in
the year 2019 and has nothing to do with the present litigation, and that
notification is applicable prospectively. It cannot, at any rate be challenged
before this court for the first time merely on the ground that an erroneous
B
interpretation has been taken qua the said notification by the High Court.
Analysis and Conclusions:
18. The relevant rules stipulating essential qualifications for the
post of JE, were framed and brought into force on 13.12.2006; they
C repealed the then existing rules framed by HPSEB in 1996. The
notification to the extent it is relevant is extracted below:

D

E

F

19. On 12.01.2007, the All-India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) prescribed that a student acquires a diploma in Engineering
G through a minimum of 3 years of institutional study (after 10+2 Secondary
Examination). Diploma holders were to be academically equivalent to
students who passed the first year of the 4 year engineering degree
programme. On 24.05.2010 by Clause 11 the Recruitment and Promotion
Regulations applicable to HPSEB were amended; they provided for
H essential qualifications for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 363
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

(Electrical) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Effective from A
21.06.2012, the rules of recruitment and regulations were amended- inter
alia, to the cadre of Assistant Engineer, by HPSEB providing two distinct
quotas in the promotion quota (from amongst serving Junior Engineers).
The existing quota of 6% available to those who acquired AMIE/Degree
in Electrical Engineering qualifications etc. in service with minimum one
B
years’ regular service after confirmation was reduced to 5% quota by
the amendment. In addition, the promotional quota to the post of Assistant
Engineer, from the cadre of Junior Engineers (with which the present
dispute is concerned) was to the extent of 5% eligible for consideration.
This quota was specifically identified as those who had completed their
engineering degree “before joining the service of Junior Engineer.” C
The relevant extract of amendments- of 2012 are set out below:
“ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E)
COL. 7 (Direct Recruitment)
Minimum educational and other qualification required for D
direct recruits.

E

F

G

H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E)
Col. No. 11 (iii) (iv) & (v)
In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer,
grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made.
Existing Provision Amended Provisions
B
(iii) from amongst those persons who pass/acquire (iii) from amongst those persons who pass/acquire the
the qualification of AMIE/Degree in Electrical qualification of AMIE (Section A & B) or who acquire
Engineering/ Electrical & Electronic Engineering/ Full time/ Regular Degree in Electrical Engineering/
Computer Science Engineering, Electronic & Electrical &Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science
Communication Engineering & Information Engineering. Electronics & Communication
Technology in Service having minimum one year Engineering & Information Technology in service after
regular service after confirmation to service confirmation to service. = 5%
= 6%
C (iv) Drawing Staff: (iv) Drawing Staff:
Circle Head Draftsman possessing Diploma in Circle Head Draftsman possessing Diploma in Elect.
Elect. Engineering or Diploma Certificate of Engineering or Diploma Certificate of Draftsmanship
Draftsmanship from a recognized Institute having from a recognized Institute having 5 years’ service in
5 years’ service in the grade failing which 10 the grade failing which 10 years’ service as
years’ service as Draftsman/Head Draftsman/Head Draughtsman/Circle Head
Draughtsman/Circle Head Draughtsman and Draughtsman and failing both total 15 years services in
failing both total 15 years services in the the Draftsman cadre. = 4%
Draftsman cadre. = 3 %
D (v) Before joining the service as JE who possess
degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
(v) Before joining the services as JE who possess
Regular/ Full time degree in Electrical Engineering/
Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science Electrical & Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science
Engineering. Electronics & Communication Engineering. Electronics & Communication Engineering
Engineering & Information Technology from a & Information Technology from a recognized university
recognized university including AMIE & having approved by the AICTE. Ex-servicemen who have the
minimum one year regular service in the cadre of relevant qualification equivalence to a recognized
JE after confirmation in the service. =5% Degree in Electrical Engineering or Electrical &
Electronic Engineering Stream/ discipline recognized by
the Govt. of India or person who posses AMIE
E qualification in above stream/ discipline from Institute
or Engineers (India Calcutta) after confirmation to
service. =5%

Note: other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged.
These amendments will be applicable with immediate effects.
F 20. By the advertisement in question, HPSEB invited applications
for direct recruitment to 222 vacancies in the cadre of JE (Electrical).
Several candidates including the present appellants (who are degree
holders) applied. They were allowed to participate in the written test
and many of them were even called for an interview and verification of
documents - sometime in April 2019. When matters stood thus, diploma
G
holders preferred an application9 before the State Administrative
Tribunal. By order dated 21.12.2018 the tribunal interdicted the
recruitment process. As there was some conflict and confusion with
respect to the interpretation of the rules on the question i.e. whether
9
H O.A. 7397 of 2018
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 365
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

degree holders could compete for the post of Junior Engineer, other writ A
petitions were preferred. The High Court10 constituted an expert
committee to examine all issues of equivalence of academic/technical
qualification and also whether persons possessing equal qualifications
were eligible for the advertised post. The committee by this report dated
15.06.2019; influenced by this Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra)
B
expressed the opinion that candidates possessing higher qualifications
were not eligible for consideration. Other writ petitions too were preferred
before the High Court.
21. During pendency of the litigation, on 03.06.2020, the HPSEB
further amended the Rules inserting a provision enabling candidates with
a minimum matriculation with diploma in Computer Science Engineering C
or Electronic & Communication Engineering as well as those with
degrees. The amendment reads as follows:
“Diploma or degree in Computer Science Engineering or
ElectronicEngineering & Communication Engineering or
Information Technology from recognised Institute/ University D
established by Law by the State/ Central Govt. OR AMIE from
Institution of Engineers (India) (only those candidates who
are enrolled for AMIE with the Institute of Engineers (India)
Kolkata will be permanent recognition up to 3105.2013)
would be eligible.” E
After taking into account the submission of the parties, the High
Court by the impugned judgment, endorsed the opinion of the committee
and was of the view that only those with matriculation and holding diploma
in the relevant subject are considered eligible for the post of Junior
Engineer. In W.P (C) 1028/2020, the Petitioners argue that the notification F
of 03.06.2020 is arbitrary as it is prospective; in the alternative, they
claim that it should be read as clarificatory and therefore always applicable.
22. The question whether the stipulation or prescription of the
particular academic qualification excludes an applicant who possesses
what is termed as a higher qualification, from their candidature to the G
concerned post has often arisen for consideration by this Court. In P.M.
Latha & Anr. v. State Of Kerala & Ors.11, the issue which arose for
consideration was whether, for primary class teachers, the prescribed
10
By an order dated 21.05.2019
11
(2003) 3 SCC 541 H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A (and advertised) qualification Trained Teacher Certificates (TTC),
included those who held B.Ed. degrees. This court was forthright in
holding that the B.Ed. qualification could not be considered as a higher
qualification than the TTC and that the TTC qualification was “given to
teachers especially trained to teach small children “primary classes”,
whereas those with B.Ed. were trained to impart education to students
B
of “higher classes”. A similar view was expressed in Yogesh Kumar
& ors v. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors 12 vis-a-vis the same
stipulation i.e., B.Ed. and TTC qualifications. The Court further held in
Yogesh Kumar (supra) that “a specialized training given to teachers
for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared
C with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree.”
23. The next judgment is Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public
Service Commission & Ors.13, where the issue was whether degree
holders could be considered for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in
the Kerala State Electricity Board, which had prescribed diploma in
D Electrical Engineering or SSLC or its equivalent as the eligibility criteria.
This Court took into consideration Rule 10A and inter alia observed as
follows:
“6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
“10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules
E or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by
executive orders or standing orders of Government as
equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special
Rules and such of those higher qualifications which
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification
F prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post.”
7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a
qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the
same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different
qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also
G justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly
indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that
part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher
12
(2003) 3 SCC 548
13
H (2010) 15 SCC 596
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 367
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower A
qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient
for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications
in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated
to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications
prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary
B
to seek far.
8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer,
degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other
equivalent qualification recognised 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, C
obviously gives an indication 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 D
diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be
considered to be sufficient for that post.
9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma-
holders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineers but
not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this E
Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who
possess higher qualifications or the position should have
been made clear that degree-holder shall not be eligible to
apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on
the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders
of higher qualifications in the same Faculty, it becomes clear F
that the Rule could be understood in an appropriate manner
as stated above. In that view of the matter the order [Jyothi
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, Original Petition
No. 9602 of 1998, order dated 30-3-2000 (Ker)] of the High
Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned G
with the question whether all those who possess such
qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory Rules
have been published and those Rules are applicable, it
presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments
will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware of the
Rules before making appropriate applications. The High H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment
of the appellants would amount to fraud on the public.”
24. It is evident therefore, that this Court was of the opinion that
for the post of Sub-Engineer (which can be termed as comparable to the
post of Junior Engineer in the present case), the Kerala State Electricity
B Board felt that those possessing degree as well could be considered.
This Court upheld the contention.
25. In Anita (supra) this court was concerned with JBT teachers,
where the minimum qualification was two years’ junior basic teachers’
training. Those with MSc, B.Ed. and MA qualifications were held ineligible,
C looking at the nature of the job i.e. teaching primary classes. Jyoti (supra)
was distinguished because the appointing authority had the option of
considering appointment of persons with higher qualifications.
26. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) the post in question was
“Technician-III” in the Power Development Department in the State
D of Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant stipulation with respect to
qualification was “Matric with ITI in the relevant trade.” The
appellants held diploma in Electrical Engineering and were included in
the list of disqualified candidates. This resulted in litigation which ultimately
culminated in the judgment of this court. This court held in its judgment14:

E “Under the above provisions as well as in the advertisement
which was issued by the Board, every candidate must possess
the prescribed academic/professional/technical qualification
and must fulfil all other eligibility conditions. The prescribed
qualifications for the post of Technician III in the Power
Development Department is a Matric with ITI in the relevant
F trade. The Board at its 116th meeting took notice of the fact
that in some districts, the interviews had been conducted for
candidates with a Diploma in Electrical Engineering while in
other districts candidates with a diploma had not been
considered to be eligible for the post of Technician III.
G Moreover, candidates with an ITI in diverse trades had also
been interviewed for the post. The Board resolved at its
meeting that only an ITI in the relevant trade, namely, the
Electrical trade is the prescribed qualification specified in
the advertisement.”
14
H (2019) 2 SCC 404
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 369
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

27. Thereafter, the Court discussed the previous rulings in P.M. A
Latha, Jyoti K.K. and Anita (supra), then concluded that the candidature
of the diploma holders was correctly rejected and held as follows:
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation
which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 B
: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision
in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015)
1 SCC (L&S) 329] . The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596
: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule
10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to C
draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily
presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower,
qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is
a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is
entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of D
eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review
to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications.
Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which
can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review.
Whether a particular qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the E
recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti
K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010)
15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a higher
qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower F
qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case
makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this
view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz
Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified
in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of G
J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge
and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not
meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the
decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW)
H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the
Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State,
as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features
including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the
B efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a
qualification and the content of the course of studies which
leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is
entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public
services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within
the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a
C public employer may well take into account social perspectives
that require the creation of job opportunities across the
societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy.
Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision
in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
D (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] must be
understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under
which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes
the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be
sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule
that the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public
E Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
664] turned.”
28. It would be also useful to notice a later judgment of this court,
in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v Anit Kumar
Das 2020 SCC On Line SC 897 where the issue was, whether for the
F post of peon in the appellant Bank, a degree holder (graduate) could be
appointed, given the conscious decision of the employer, that only those
who held 10+2 pass qualifications would be considered and those with
graduation qualification could not be considered. This court held that the
appointment of the respondent, who was a graduate, after he suppressed
G the fact that he held a degree, and did not disclose it, was unsupportable.
In this context, it was observed that as to what qualifications are applicable
to what class of posts, is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the
employer, which the courts would be slow to interdict. This decision too
supports the conclusions in the present case, since the employer, HPSEB
asserts that it considers degree holders eligible for appointment to the
H post of JE.
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 371
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

29. In the present case, what is evident from the rules is that A
direct recruitment to the post of JEs in HPSEB is to the extent of 72%.
Undoubtedly, eligibility is amongst those who passed in matriculation or
10+2 or its equivalent qualification. However, this Court is of the opinion
that the diploma holders’ contention that the minimum qualification is
matriculation and that the technical qualification is diploma is incorrect.
B
The minimum qualification for the post cannot be deemed to be only
matriculation but rather that only such of those matriculates, or 10+2
pass students, who are diploma holders would be eligible. The term
“with” in this category has to be read as conjunctive.
30. As far as the merits of the main question i.e. whether degree
holders too can apply for the post of JEs, a close examination of the C
rules shows that a lion’s share of the posts at the JE level is set apart for
direct recruitment. However, when it is at the level of the higher post i.e.
Assistant Engineer which is a promotional post direct recruitment is only
to the extent of 36%. Of the balance 64%, various sub-quotas have
been stipulated for feeder cadres; the largest percentage being for Junior D
Engineers. For a long time, even on the date of the advertisement, two
distinct quotas (of 5%) had been set apart for promotion of Junior
Engineers holding degree qualifications in the concerned subject.
31. This Court is conscious that the issue in question is whether
the minimum qualification of a diploma in electrical or electronic E
engineering or other prescribed qualifications includes a degree in that
discipline. However, the rules have to be considered as a whole. So
viewed, the two sub-quotas are:
(1) 5% enabling those diploma holders who acquire degree
qualifications during service as Junior Engineers; and F
(2) 5% enabling among those who hold degrees before joining as
Junior Engineers;
32. The latter (2) conclusively establishes that what the rule making
authority undoubtedly had in mind was that degree holders too could
compete for the position of JEs as individuals holding equivalent or higher G
qualifications. If such interpretation were not given, there would be
no meaning in the 5% sub-quota set apart for those who were degree
holders before joining as Junior Engineers - in terms of the
recruitment rules as existing.
H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A 33. The court’s opinion is fortified by the latest amendment brought
about on 03.06.2020. This clarifies beyond doubt that even for the post
of Junior Engineers, those individuals holding higher qualifications are
eligible to compete. In the opinion of this Court, though the amending
rules were brought into force prospectively, nevertheless, being
clarificatory, they apply to the recruitment that is the subject matter of
B
the present controversy. Such a position (i.e. clarificatory amendments
operative retroactively, despite their enforcement prospectively) has been
held in several previous judgments of this court. In Zile Singh v. State
of Haryana15 this Court examined the various authorities on statutory
interpretation and concluded: (SCC pp. 8-9, paras 13-14)
C “13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute
is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary
implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the
Rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is
to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair
D existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute
sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect
existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only—‘nova
constitutiofuturisformamimponeredebet non praeteritis’—a new
law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. (See
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th
E Edn., 2004 at page 438.) It is not necessary that an express
provision be made to make a statute retrospective and the
presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by
necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is
made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the
F community as a whole (ibid., page 440).
14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not
applicable to declaratory statutes.... In determining, therefore,
the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance
rather than to the form. If a new Act is ‘to explain’ an earlier
G Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively.
An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious
omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous
Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely
15
(2004) 8 SCC 1
H
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 373
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is A
generally intended.... An amending Act may be purely
declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal
Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of
this nature will have retrospective effect (ibid., pp. 468-69).”
34. In Vijay v. State of Maharashtra16, this court held as follows: B
“12. The appellant was elected in terms of the provisions of a
statute. The right to be elected was created by a statute and,
thus, can be taken away by a statute. It is now well settled
that when a literal reading of the provision giving retrospective
effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same would C
not be construed to be only prospective. The negation is not
a rigid rule and varies with the intention and purport of the
legislature, but to apply it in such a case is a doctrine of
fairness. When a law is enacted for the benefit of the
community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision,
the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. The D
appellant does not and cannot question the competence of
the legislature in this behalf.
35. Likewise, in Manish Kumar v Union of India17, it was held
that:
E
“Declaratory, clarificatory or curative Statutes are allowed
to hold sway in the past. The very nature of the said laws
involve the aspect of public interest which requires sovereign
Legislature to remove defects, clarify aspects which create
doubt. The declaratory law again has the effect of the
legislative intention being made clear. It may not be apposite F
in the case of these Statutes to paint them with the taint of
retrospectivity.”
36. It would also be relevant to notice that in the appeal, it has
been specifically averred that the HPSEB has been making contractual
appointments from amongst degree holders in the cadre of Junior G
Engineers, and that an order was issued upon the recommendation of
the Screening Committee, which through its meeting held on 11.04.2018
had cleared the regularization of 28 such candidates. These degree holders
16
(2006) 6 SCC 289
17
(2019) 8 SCC 416 H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A are equivalent to Junior Engineers, and had been working for periods
ranging between 4 to 6 years. A copy of that order has been produced
as Annexure P-10 in the Special Leave Petition.18
37. The considerations which weighed with this court in the
previous decisions i.e. P.M. Latha, Yogesh Kumar, Anita (Supra) were
B quite different from the facts of this case. This court’s conclusions that
the prescription of a specific qualification, excluding what is generally
regarded as a higher qualification can apply to certain categories of
posts. Thus, in Latha and Yogesh Kumar as well as Anita (supra) those
possessing degrees or post-graduation or B.Ed. degrees, were not
considered eligible for the post of primary or junior teacher. In a similar
C manner, for “Technician-III” or lower post, the equivalent qualification
for the post of Junior Engineer i.e. diploma holders were deemed to
have been excluded, in Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra). This court is
cognizant of the fact that in Anita as well as Zahoor (supra) the
stipulation in Jyoti (supra) which enabled consideration of candidates
D with higher qualifications was deemed to be a distinguishing ground. No
such stipulation exists in the HPSEB Rules. Yet, of material significance
is the fact that the higher post of Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to
Junior Engineer) has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional quota. Amongst
these individuals, those who held degrees before appointment as a Junior
Engineers are entitled for consideration in a separate and distinct sub-
E quota, provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a
prescribed period. This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it only shows
the intent of the rule makers not to exclude degree holders from
consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers.
38. As noticed previously, in addition to the above considerations,
F an amendment to the rules was made on 03.06.2020 declaring that those
with higher qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for
appointment. This amendment was brought in to clear all doubts and
controversies and, in that sense, the amending provisions should be
deemed to have been inserted from inception.
G 39. For the foregoing reasons, these batches of appeals by the
degree holders have to succeed. The respondent HPSEB is directed to
process the candidature of all applicants, including the degree holders
who participated, and depending on the relative merits, proceed to issue

18
H SLP (C) 10533-37 of 2020
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE 375
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

the final selection list of all successful candidates, after holding interviews, A
etc. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside; the appeals are
allowed and writ petition is allowed partly, in the above terms, without
order on costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals allowed and Writ Petition partly allowed. B

C

D

E

F

G

H