Holding

The mandatory educational qualification of a degree or diploma in Engineering is applicable to both direct recruitment and promotion; experience cannot substitute for it, and courts cannot override the statutory provisions.

Summary

The State of Madhya Pradesh appointed Dharm Bir as Principal of an Industrial Training Institute on an ad‑hoc basis, but the 1985 Madhya Pradesh Industrial (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules required a degree or diploma in Engineering for that post. When the Rules were promulgated, a promotion committee found Bir ineligible for the Principal post because he lacked the prescribed qualification and appointed him Vice‑Principal instead. Bir challenged this order; the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal allowed his claim, holding that the qualification requirement applied only to direct recruitment. The Supreme Court reversed the Tribunal, holding that the educational qualification is mandatory for both direct recruitment and promotion, that experience cannot substitute for a degree/diploma, and that courts cannot relax statutory requirements on humanitarian grounds. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s judgment set aside, and Bir’s petition dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the educational qualification of a degree or diploma in Engineering prescribed in the Madhya Pradesh Industrial (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules applies to promotions as well as direct recruitment.
Whether experience gained in an ad‑hoc posting can be equated with the statutory educational qualification for the post of Principal.
Whether a court or tribunal can relax or override mandatory statutory qualifications on humanitarian or ‘human approach’ grounds.
Whether an ad‑hoc appointment confers substantive status that can be regularised without meeting the statutory qualifications.
Who possesses the power to relax the rules – the Governor under the Rules or the judiciary?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 300, s. Article 302, s. Article 309, s. Article 310, s. Article 311

Subjects

service lawrecruitment ruleseducational qualificationpromotionad‑hoc appointmentstatutory interpretationconstitutional lawArticle 300Article 309government service status

Judgment

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. A
v.
DHARAM BIR

JUNE 8, 1998

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Service Law-MP. Industrial (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules,
1985 Rr-13, 14--Educational qualification-Govt. can prescribe the mode
of appointment and the qualifications for the post-Mere experience cannot C
be equated to educational qualification-Government service after appointment
ceases to be a mere contract but one of status governed by the statutes and
rules applicable to the post-The capacity in which the post is held viz ad
hoc /substantive capacity/temporary affects the status-Only when there is a
provision in the statute or rules for an alteration of status, can a government
servant claim it-Neither the Courts nor Tribunals can provide relief on D
sympathetic grounds overriding the mandatory provisions of the Statute
.............
since such an order would amount to altering or amending provisions made
under Article 300 of the Constitution.

The respondent was holding the post of Principal on an ad hoc basis
on promotion till the new Rules were promulgated. Under the said Rules the E
candidate for the post of Principal was to possess a Degree or Diploma in
Engineering and, since he had neither, he was disqualified for the post
Principal but was appointed as Vice-Principal. Aggrieved by this order the
Respondent challenged the order before the High Court which was later
transferred before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal F
allowed the petition on the ground that the requirement of qualification of
diploma/degree was not necessary for promotees. Hence these appeals.

Allowing the appeal by the State, this Court
HELD : I. The respondent having worked in an ad hoc capacity on the
post of Principal might have gained some administrative experience but the G
same cannot be treated as equivalent to his knowledge in the field of
Engineering. A Compounder, sitting for a considerably long time with a
Doctor practicing in modern medicine, may have gained some experience by
observing the medicine prescribed by the Doctor for various diseases or
ailments but that does not mean that he, by that process, acquires knowledge H
511
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A of the Human Anatomy or Physiology or the principles of Pharmacology or
the field of action of any particular medicine or its side effects. The
Compounder cannot, merely on the basis of experience, claim a post meant
exclusively for persons having MBBS or other higher degrees in medicine
or surgery. The plea of experience, therefore, must fail. Moreover, this
B would amount to a relaxation of Rule relating educational qualification Power
to relax the Rule vests exclusively in the Governor as provided by Rule 21.
This power cannot be usurped by the Court or the Tribunal.
(524-H; 525-A-B)
2. If the Government, in exercise of its executive power , has created
certain posts, it is for it to prescribe the mode of appointment or the
C qualifications which have to be possessed by the candidates before they are
appointed on those posts. The qualifications would naturally vary with the
nature of posts or the service created by the Government. (524-E)

3. The post in question is the post of Principal of the Industrial
Training Institute. The Government has prescribed a degree or a Diploma
D in Engineering as the essential qualification for this post. No one who does
not possess this qualification can be appointed on this post. The educational
qualification has direct nexus with the nature of the post. The Principal may
also have an occasion to take classes and teach the students. A person who
does not hold either a Degree or a Diploma in Engineering cannot possibly
E teach the students of Industrial Training Institute the technicalities of the
subject of Engineering and its various branches. "Experience" gained by the
respondent on account of his working on the post in question for over a
decade cannot be equated with Educational qualifications required to be
possessed by a candidate as a condition of eligibility for promotion to higher
posts. [524-F-G)
F 4. The plea that the Court should have a "human approach" and should
not disturb a person who has already been working on this post for more
than a decade also cannot be accepted as the Courts are hardly swayed by
emotional appeals. In dispensing justice to litigating parties, the Courts not
only go into the merits of the respective cases ; they also try to balance
G equities so as to do complete justice between them. Thus the Courts always
maintain a human approach. In the instant case also this approach has not
been departed from. The Court is fully conscious that the respondent had
worked on the post in question for quite a long time but it was only in an
i:d hoc capacity, that a selected candidate who also possesses necessary
educational qualification is available. In this situation , if the respondent is
H allowed to continue on this post merely on the basis of his concept of "human
STATE'" DHARAM BIR 513
.. .,, appr11ach", it would be at the cost of a duly selected candidate who would be A
deprived of employment for which he had striven and had ultimately cleared
the selection. In fact, it is the "human approach" which requires the Court
to prefer the selected candidate over a person who does not possess even the
requisite qualification. The Courts as also the Tribunal have no power to
override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration
that a person , though not possessing the essential educational qualifications,
B
should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experii:nce.
Such an order would amount to altering or amending the Statutory provisions
"* >
made by the Government under Article 300 of the Constitution.
[523-G-H; 524-A-C)
5. Whether a person holds a particular post in a substantive capacity c
or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly relates to his
status. It all depends on the terms of appointment. It is not open to any
Government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that
result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules.
Unless therefore, there is a provision in the Statutory Rules for alteration
of status in a particular situation, it is not open to any government employee
D
to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon '1im at the
-- "' initial or any subsequent stage of service. Applying these principles to the
instant case, since the respondent, admittedly, was appointed in an ad hoc
capacity, he would continue to hol«! the post in question in that capacity. On
the promulgation of the Rules, therefore, the post of Principal which he was E
holding could not be treated to have been filled up on regular basis and had
to be treated as vacant In order to make regular appointment by promotion
on that post, the eligible candidates were considered and respondent, not
possessing the required educational qualification, was not found fit or suitable
for the post of Principal and was consequently directed to be appointed on
F
regular basis as Vice-Principal as he was found suitable only for that post
principally for the reason that he did not possess a Degree or Diploma in
# Engineering. [522-F-H; 523-A-B)

Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 185; Union of
India & Anr v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR (1985) SC 1416 = [1985) 3 SCC 398 = G .·
(19851 Suppl. 2 SCR 131 and Delhi Transport Coporation v. DTC Mfadoor
Congress, AIR (1991) SC 101 = [1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 600 d )1990) Supp.
• 1 SCR 142, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil AppeDL Nos. 7333-34
of 1995. H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998]3 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.94/2.1.95 of the Madhya Pradesh
"I
Administrative Tribunal, Jabal Pur in T.A. No. 510 of 1988 & M.A. No. 361
of 1994.

Ms. Madhur Dadlani, S.K.Agnihotri and Ashok K. Singh for the
Appellants.
B
K. Swami, A.Raghunath and Ms. Prabha Swami for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was ddivered by

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. I. "No, mere experiential knowledge is no
C equivalent to a Degree in Engineering" is our positive answer to the negative
argument that respondent, though not possessing the requisite qualification,
be held to be validly holding the post of principal, !TI, on the basis of his
experience.

2. The facts, the questions raised and the findings thereon are recorded
D hereinafter.

3. The respondent was appointed as Senior Instructor on 3.12.1957 and
was promoted as Supervisor Instructor on 13.12.1959. Thereafter he was
promoted as Foreman and then as Group Instructor.

E 4. On 15.6.1976, respondent was promoted as Principal, Class II, for a
period of six months or till the candidates duly selected by the Public Service
Commission for that post were available (whichever was earlier). The post of
Principal, Class II was a newly created post and was not included in the M.P.
Industrial (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1965 and since the mode of
p appointment or recruitment on that post was not prescribed till about 1985,
the respondent continued to work on that post at different places where he
was transferred from time to time.

5. On 28.6.1985, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Training (Gazetted) Service
Recruitment Rules 1995 (for short, Rules), made by the State Government
G under Article 302 of the Constitution, were published. These Rules replaced
the M.P. Industrial (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1965. The new Rules
provided that the post of Principal, Grade II, would be filied up by direct
recruitment to the extent of 75 per cent and by promotion to the extent of 25
per cent. The manner of recruitment by way of promotion was indicated in
H Rules 13 to 18.
STA TE v. DHARAM BIR (S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 515
6. After the Rules were made and duly promulgated, a meeting of the A
_ "" Departmental Promotion Committee was held in November, 1985 to consider
the eligible candidates for regular promotion on the post of principal, Class
II. Since the respondent did not possess a Degree or Diploma in Engineering
prescribed under the Rules for the post of Principal, Class II, the Committee
found him fit only for the post of Vice Principal and, therefore, by order dated B
12.06.1986, he was promoted and appointed as Vice-Principal, Industrial Training
Institute, Bhilai.

7. It is this order which constitutes the basis of this protracted litigation
as the respondent who was already working as Principal, Class II characterises
the said order as an order of reversion. C
8. The respondent challenged this order in a Writ Petition filled before
the M.P. High Court which was transferred to the M.P. State Administrative
Tribunal, Jabalpur, and the Tribunal, by its judgment dated 19.4.1994, allowed
the petition with the finding that the requirement of possessing the educational
qualification of a Degree or Diploma in Engineering for the post of Principal D

--
was applicable only to direct recruitment and not to promotions and as such
the respondent who, admittedly, did neither possess a Degree nor a Diploma
in Engineering, was still entitled to be promoted as Principal, Class II.

9. It is the logic of this apparently illogical reasoning which is to be E
scrutinised by us in this appeal.

10. Appointments, either by direct requirement or by promotion, on the
post of Principal, Class I or class II as pointed out earlier, are made in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules promulgated in 1985. Rule 7
which deals with "appointment to the service" provides as under:- F
"7. Appointment to he service.- An appointment to the service, after
commencement of these rules, shall be made by the Government and
no such appointment shall be made except after selection by one of
the methods of recruitment specified in rule 6."
G
11. Method of recruitment has been indicated in Rule 6 which is quoted
below:-

"6. Method of recruitment.- (1) Recruitment to the service after the
commencement of these unless, shall be by the following methods;
namely:- H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998]3 S.C.R.

A (a) By direct recruitment through selection;
(b) By promotion of the members of the Service as specified in
Column (2) of the Schedule IV;

(c) By transfer of the persons substantively appointed on the
B specified posts in the specified service.

(2) The number of the persons recruited under clauses (b) and (c) of
sub-rule (I) shall not at any time exceed, the percentage as shown in
Schedule II of the number of duty posts.

C (3) Subject to the provisions of these mies, the method or methods
of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of filling any particular
vacancy or vacancies in the Service, as may be required to be filled
during any particular period of recruitment, and the number of the
persons to be recruited by each method shall be determined on each
occasion by the Government in consultation with the Commission.
D
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) if in the opinion
of the Government, the exigencies, of the service so requires, the
Government may, after obtaining the approval of the Government in
the General Administration Department, adopt such method or methods
of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said
E sub-rule, as it may by order issued in this behalf prescribe."

12. Conditions of eligibility of the candidates for direct recruitment are
indicated in Rule 8. first part of the Rule deals with the requirement of "age".
Sub-rule (2) which prescribes educational qualifications is quoted below:-
F (2) Educational qualifications. -The candidates must possess the
educational qualification prescribed for the service as shown in the
Schedule III:

Provided that-
G (a) In exceptional cases the Commission may, on the recommendations
of the Government, treat any candidate as qualified for appearing for
selection who though not possessing any of the qualifications
prescribed in this Clause, has passed examination conducted by other
institutions by a standard which, in the opinion of the Commission
H justifies the consideration of the candidate for selection.
STArEv. DHARAM BIR[S. SAGHIRAHMAD, J.] 517
(b) Candidates, who are otherwise qualified but have taken degrees A
.. ..,, from foreign Universities not specifically recognized by the
Government, may; also be considered for selection at the direction of
the Commission.

13. The educational qualification prescribed in Schedule III is a Degree
or Diploma in Engineering. B

14. Rule 13 provides for appointment by promotion. Rule 14 provides
conditions of eligibility for promotion. Both the Rules are quoted below:

"13. Appointment by promotion.-(!) There shall be constituted a
Committee consisting of the members mentioned in Schedule IV for C
making a preliminary selection for promotion of the eligible candidates.

(2) The Committee shall meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding one
year.

(3) 15 percent and 18 percent of the vacancies available for promotion D
in such posts in which the percentage of promotion is 33 1/3 or more
as specified in the Schedule II, shall be reserved for the candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively
who are eligible for promotion in accordance with the provisions of
rule 14. E
(4) The procedure for promotion to the reserved vacancies shall be in
accordance with the instruction issued by the Government in the
General Administration Department from time to time."

"14. Conditions of eligibility for promotion.- subject to the provisions F
of sub-rule (2), the Committee shall, consider the cases of all those
I persons, who, on the first day of January of that year had completed

~. service of such number of years, whether in officiating or substantive

f capacity, on the post from which promotion is to be made as specified
in column (3) of Schedule IV and are within the zone of consideration G
in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2):

Provided that the services of the released officers of the Emergency
Commission and Short Service Commission after their appointment in
the service, shall be counted from the date from which, they have
been deemed to have been appointed in the service in accordance H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A with the General Administration Deptt. Memo No. 2266/1987 /1 (3) 67
dt. the 21st October, 1967.

Provided further that under this rule no junior person shall be
considered for Select Grade Promotion in preference to the person
senior to him merely on the basis of his completing the prescribed
B service.

(2) The field of selection shall ordinarily be limited to seven times of
the number of officers to be included in the select list in respect of
posts to be filled on the basis of "merit-cum-seniority" and five times
the number of officers to be included in the select list in respect of
c posts to be filled on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit";

Provided that if required number of suitable officers are not
available in the field so determined, the field may be enlarged to the
extent considered necessary by the committee by mentioning the
D reasons in writing".

15. Rule 15 provides for the preparation of a list of officers found
suitable for promotion. Rule 16 requires this list to be sent to the Commission
for approval. Once the list is approved by the Commission, it becomes the
Select List contemplated by Rule 17. Rule 18 provides that appointment to the
E service shall be made from the Select List and in making appointment of the
officers included in the Select List, the order in which their names appear in
the Select List shall be strictly adhered to except as otherwise provided in the
Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18. Since Rule 14 which sets out the conditions
of eligibility for promotion specifically refers to Schedule IV for purposes of
F indicating the number of years of service which should have been completed
by the officer concerned in order to be eligible for promotion, the relevant
provisions of Schedule IV are reproduced below:-

"SCHEDULE IV
(See Rule 13)
,
G
Name of the Name of the Minimum Name of the Name of the
Department Service or experience service or Members of
post from for post to the
which eligibility which Departmental
H promotion promotion promotion
+
STATE v. DHARAM BIR [S. SAGIR AHMAD, J.] 519
is to be is to be Committee A
0::;r'Y
made made
(I) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Man Power The Madhya
Planning Pradesh
Depart- Industrial B
ment Training
(Gazetted
). Service

Principal 3 years Dy. Appren- Director,
c
Class II ticeship Employ-
Adviser ment and
(Junior) Training,
Principal, Madhya
Class I Pradesh D
Member
~~
Group Inst- 3 years Principal
ructor/ Technical Class II
Assistant /Jr
Adviser, Appren-
ticeship/Mill E
Wright Forman/
Superintendent,
Training provided

-
that they possess
the technical and
educational
F
-...\
qualifications
specified in
Column(5) of
Schedule III.
Group Inspector/ 10 year Vice- G
Technical Assistant/ Principal
Junior Adviser
. Apprenticeship /Mill
Wright Foreman/
Superintendent,
Technical, not H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A possessing
Diploma/ Degree

16. It is thus specifically mentioned in Schedule IV that Group Instructor/
Technical Assistant/Junior Advisor etc. who have completed 3 years of service
would be eligible for promotion to the post of principal, Class II. the requirement
B does not stop here. It proceeds further to say, "provided they possess the
technical and educational qualification specified in Column (5) of Schedule
III''. Reading Rules 13 and 14 along with Schedule IV as also Column (5}-Qf
Schedule III, it becomes apparent that in order to be eligible for promotion
to the post of principal, Class II, the officer concerned should not only have
C put in 3 years of service but should also possess the technical and educational
qualification set out in Column (5) of Schedule III, namely, that they should
have either a Degree or Diploma in Engineering. Column (5) of Schedule III
which prescribes educational qualifications for direct recruitment thus becomes
a part of Schedule IV on the principles of "legisl~tion by reference or
incorporation." These qualifications will, therefore, be applicable not only to
D direct recruitment but also to promotions .

17. Schedule IV also indicates that Group Instructor/Technical Assistant/
Junior Adviser Apprenticeship/Mill Wright Foreman, Superintendent, Technical
who do not possess Degree or Diploma in Engineering will be eligible only
for promotion to the post of Vice-principal provided that they have put in I 0
E years of service.

18. Thus, the Rules specifically provide for promotion of both the
groups, namely, those who hold the Degree or Diploma in Engineering and
those who do not possess this qualification. Those who possess Degree or
F Diploma in Engineering can be promoted to the post of Principal, Class II and
other higher posts indicated in Schedule IV while those who do not possess
such Degree or Diploma can be promoted only up to the post of Vice-
Principal.

19. Admittedly, the respondent does not possess either a Degree or
G Diploma in Engineering. He possesses Diploma in Craft and consequently
was not eligible for promotion to the post of Principa~ Class II or Class I.

20. The Tribunal failed to notice the relevant provisions of the Service
Rules in their <rue perspective and proceeded to allow the claim of the
respondent on an erroneous view that the requirement of possessing a Degree
H or diploma cannot be applied to appointments by way of promotion.
STATE v. DHARA"'1 BIR [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 521
21. The post of Principal whether it is of C:ass 11 or Class I is a post A
of higher responsibilities. The administrative qualities are mixed and blended
with the academic achievements of the candidates and, therefore, it has been
specifically provided in the Rules, specially the Schedule appended thereto,
that the candidates, whether they are to be appointed by direct recruitment
or by promotion, must possess a Degree or Diploma in Engineering.
B
22. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that since he had
already been promoted to·the post of Principal, Class II and was also placed
on the post of principal, Class 1 before the promulgation of the Rules, his
promotion as Principal cannot be disturbed. It is contended that the Rules
would apply to a situation where the post was lying vacant and was intended C
to be filled :ip after the promulgation of the Rules. It is also contended that
having worked on the post of Principal since 1976, he cannot be shifted to
the post of Vice- Principal after such a long period of dedicated service on the
higher post. These contentions are devoid of merit.

23. It is not disputed that the respondmt was promoted to the post D
of Principal, Class II for a short period of six months or till the availability of
candidates duly selected by the Commission, whichever was earlier. It is also
not disputed and the Tribunal itself has found it as a fact that the respondent
was placed on the post of Principal only in an ad hoc capacity. Consequently,
the post, having not been filled up on a regular basis in accordance with the
Rules, was rightly treated by the appellant to be vacant. That being so, the E
respondent had only ad hoc status which he would continue to hold till it
was altered by the appointing authority.

24. Government service is essentially a matter of status rather than a
contract. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union F
of India, (l 968] I SCR 185 had observed as under:

"It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. There
is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his
post or office the Goyernment servant acquires a status and his rights
and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, G
but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered
unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal position of
a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hall-
... mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and
duties '.mposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the
parties. The emolument of the Government servant and his terms of H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A service are governed by statutt: or statutory rules which may be
unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the
employee. It is true that Article 311 imposes constitutional restrictions
upon the power of removal granted to the President and the Governor
under Article 310. But it is obvious that the relationship between the
Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service
B between a master and servant. The legal relationship is something
entirely different, something in the nature off status. It is much more
than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between
the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the la"' and in the
enforcement of these duties society has an interest. In the language
c of jurisprudence status is a condition of membership of a group of
which powers and duties are exclusively determined by !aw and not
by agreement between the parties concerned.

25. These observations were quoted with approval by another
Constitution Bench in Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR (1985)
D SC 1416 = [1985 J 3 SCC 398, [1985] Suppl. 2 SCR 131. A 9-Judge Bench in
Delhi Transport Corporation v. OTC Mazdoor Congress., AIR (1991) SC 101
-' [1991] Supp. I SCC 600 ,~ [1990) Supp. I SCR 142 also approved the
principles laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon 's case (supra) that the legal
relationship beraeen the Government and its servants is something entirely
E different. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship and is in the
nature of 'status'.

26. Whether a person holds a particular post in a substantive capacity
or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly n:lates to his
status . It all depends upon the terms of appointment. It is not open to any
F Government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that
... - -
result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules.
Unless, therefore, there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of
status in a particular situation, it is not open to any Government employee
to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the
G initial or any subsequent stage of service.

27. Applying these principles to the instant case, since the respondent,
admittedly, was appointed in an ad hoc capacity, he would continue to hold
the post in question in that capacity. On the promulgation of Rules, therefore,
the post of Principal which he was holding could not be treated to have been
H · filled up on regular basis and had to be treated as vacant. In order to make
I
'
\
STATE v. DHARAM BIR [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 523

-..... regular appointment by promotion on that post, the eligible candidates were
considered and the respondent, not possessing the required educational
A

qualification, was not found fit or suitable for the post of Principal and was
consequently directed to the appointed on regular basis as Vice-principal as
he was found suitable only for that post principally for the reason that he did
not possess a Degree or Diploma in Engineering.
B
28. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that
although the respondent does not possess a Degree or Diploma in Engineering,
he has been working on the post of Principal for a long time and since he
has acquired sufficient experience on that post he need not, in the
circumstances, be disturbed by reverting him as Vice Principal. This plea is C
also without merits.

29. Rule 8(2), which provides for Educational qualification, is in
mandatory terms and it is mentioned therein that "the candidates must possess
the educational qualification prescribed for the service as shown in Schedule
Ill." In column 2 of Schedule III, the posts of Principal Class I and principal D
Class 11 are mentioned and in column 5 thereof, it is again mentioned in
mandatory terms that "the candidates must possess a Degree in Engineering
from any recognised L'niversity or must possess a Diploma in Engineering
from any recognised University or Board along with five years' experience of
working in any Training Institute or in any reputed business concern."
E
30. We have already held above that educational qualifications mentioned
in column 5 of Schedule III for the post of Principal Class I or Principal Class
II are also applicable to appointments by promotion and that the applicability
of column 5 of Schedule III is not restricted to direct appointments. In this

• - ...i,
situation, therefore, before a person is eligible for being promoted to the post F
of Principle class II or Principal Class I, he must possess a Degree or Diploma
in Engineering.

31. The plea that the Court should have a "human approach" and
should not disturb a person who has already been working on this post for
more than a decade also cannot be accepted as the Courts are hardly swayed G
by emotional appeals. In dispensing justice to the litigating parties, the Courts
not only go into the merits of the respective cases, they also try to balance
the equities so as to do complete justice between them. Thus the Courts
... always maintain a human approach. In the instant case also, this approach
has not been departed from. We are fully conscious that the respondent had
worked on the post in question for quite a long time but it was only in ad H
524 SCPREMc COUR1 REPORTS I 1998] 3 S.C.R.
A hoc capacity. We are equally conscious that a selected candidate who also
possesses necessary educational qualification is available. In this situation, .. ·-
if the respondent is allowed to continue on this post merely on the basis of
his concept of "human approach", it would be at the cost of a duly selected
candidate who would be deprived of employment for which he had striven
B and had ultimately cleared the selection. In fact, it is the "human approach"
which requires us to prefer the selected candidate over a person who does
not possess even the requisite qualification. The Courts as also the Tribunal
have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on
sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential
educational qualifications. should be allowed to continue on the post merely
C on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or
amending the Statutory Provisions made by the Government under Article 309
of the Constitution.

32. " Experience" gained by the respondent on account of his working
on the post in question for over a decade cannot be equated with Educational
D Qualifications required to be possessed by a candidate as a condition of
eligibility for promotion to higher posts. If the Government, in exercise of its
executive power, has created certain posts. it is for it to prescribe the mode
of appointment or the qualifications which have to be possessed by the
candidates before they are appointed on those posts. The qualifications
E would naturally vary with the nature of posts or the service created by the
Government.

33. The post in question is the post of Principal of the Industrial
Training Institute. The Government has prescribed a Degree or Diploma in
Engineering as the essential qualification of this post. No one who does not
F possess this qualif:cation can be appoint~d on this post. The educational
,.. -
qualification has direct nexus with the nature of the post. The Principal may
also have an occasion to take classes and teach the students. A person who
does not hold either a Degree or Diploma in bngineering cannot possibly
teach the students of Industrial Training Institute the technicalities of the
subject of Engineering and its various branches.
G
34. The respondent having worked in an ad hoc capacity on the post
of Principal might have gained some administrative experience but the same
cannot be treated as equivalent to his knowledge in the field of Engineering.
A Compounder, sitting for a considerably long time with a Doctor practicing
in modern medicine, may have gained some experience by observing the
H medicine prescribed by the Doctor for various diseases or ailments but that
STA l'E v. DHARAM BIR (S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J] 525
does not mean that he, by that process, acquires knowledge of the Human A
Anatomy or Physiology or the principles of pharmacology or the field of
action of any particular medicine or its side effects. The Compounder cannot,
merely on the basis of experience, claim a post meant exclusively for persons
having MBBS or other higher degrees in medicine or surgery. The plea of
experience, therefore, must fail. Moreover, this would amount to a relaxation B
of Rule relating to educational qualification. Power to relax the Rule vests
exclusively in the Governor as provided by Rule 2 \. This power cannot be
usurped by the Court or the Tribunal.

35. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed, the judgment
and order dated 19.4.1994 passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal is set C
aside and the c:aim petition of the respondent is dismissed but without any
order as to costs.

!.M.A. Appeals allowed.

)