Holding

The mandatory educational qualification of a Civil Engineering degree for direct recruits under the Recruitment Rules also applies to promotees, and column 11(2) does not exempt the requirement, rendering the respondent ineligible.

Summary

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) challenged the eligibility of Sukanta Kar, a Departmental Scientific Officer, for promotion to Deputy Advisor (Training) in the Central Public Health and Environmental Organisation. The UPSC argued that the 1985 Deputy Advisor (Training) Recruitment Rules required a degree in Civil Engineering, which Kar did not possess, while Kar contended that five years of regular service under column 11(2) sufficed. The Supreme Court examined columns 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Recruitment Rules and held that the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruits applies to promotees, whereas the age qualification does not. It concluded that column 11(2) is merely an exception regarding source of recruitment and does not waive the essential civil engineering qualification. Consequently, the Court found Kar ineligible and set aside the Tribunal and High Court decisions, allowing the UPSC's appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the educational qualification of a degree in Civil Engineering prescribed for direct recruits under the 1985 Recruitment Rules is mandatory for promotion of a Departmental Scientific Officer to Deputy Advisor (Training).
Whether column 11(2) of the Recruitment Rules provides an exception that relaxes the educational qualification requirement for promotees.
Whether the Tribunal and Delhi High Court erred in holding the respondent eligible for the post.

Subjects

recruitment by promotioneligibilityeducational qualificationCivil Engineering degreeDepartmental Scientific OfficerUPSCRecruitment Rules 1985service law

Judgment

A UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ...,..
v.
SUKANTA KAR AND ANR.

MAY 8, 2007

B [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.)

Service Law:
-~
;.
Recruitment-By promotion-Eligibility-Dispute with regard to
c eligibility of Respondent No. I for the post of Deputy Advisor (Training) in
Central Public Health and Environmental Organisation of Urban Development
Ministry-Respondent No. I is a Departmental Scientific Officer-Both
Tribunal and the High Court held that he was eligible-Correctness of-
Held, not correct-Since Respondent No. I did not possess the requisite
D educational qualification laid down under the Rules-Ministry of Works and
Housing, Deputy Advisor (Training) Recruitment Rules, 1985.

The controversy in the present appeal relates to the eligibility of ~

Respondent No.1 for recruitment by promotion to the post of Deputy Advisor '"'\
(fraining) in the Central Public Health and Environmental Organisation of
E the Urban Development Ministry. Respondent No.1 is a Departmental
Scientific Officer.

According to the appellant, Respondent No.1 is ineligible since he did
not possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed in the Ministry
of Works and Housing, Deputy Advisor (Training) Recruitment Rules, 1985
F viz. a Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognized university.

Respondent No.1 however contended that he was holding the Degree of ."I
Master of Science and could not be expected to hold Degree in Civil
Engineering after rendering five years regular service as a Scientific Officer.
He contended that in terms of the special provisions made in Column 11 (2)
G of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, five years regular service by a
Departmental Scientific Officer is enough and there is no requirement to
fulfill the essential educational qualification of a Degree in Civil Engineering
or equivalent as prescribed in columns 7, 8 and 10 of the Schedule to the
Recruitment Rules.
_, .
H 128
U.P.S.C. v. SUKANTA KAR 129
-~
Both the Tribunal and the High Court on interpretation of the said A
Recruitment Rules held that Respondent No. l was eligible. Hence the present
appeal

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. In Column 8 of the Recruitment Rules, it is provided that the B
educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case
of promotees but not age qualification. So far as the question as to whether
age and educational qualification prescribed for direct recruits will apply in
..
)'.

the case of promotees is concerned, it has been clearly stipulated that in the
case of age the answer is in the negative, while in the case of educational
qualification it is in the affirmative. [Paras 10 and 11) (131-E-F; 132-C) c
2. Essential qualification required for the direct recruits, is specifically
provided in Clause 7(i)(a) to be Degree in Civil Engineering of a recognized
university or equivalent. The source of recruitment is to be indicated as
promotion, transfer and deputation. The educational qualification provided
under Clause 7(i)(a) is in no way diluted. Clause 11(2) only indicates the D
source i.e. Permanent Scientific Officer. In fact, the letter of the Government
-'( of India, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation of October
T 2001 speaks of relaxation. Interestingly, in the evaluation done by the Union
of India in respect of all applicants where the remarks are indicated, the Union
had clearly stated that respondent No. I was not eligible as he did not possess
the requisite educational qualification. In the letter dated 21.3.2002 the E
Union's stand was changed on the basis of the representation made by
respondent No.I. The stand of the Union seems to be varying at different points
of time. Initially in the application of respondent No. I it was noted that he was
ineligible. Its stand was changed before Tribunal. Rule 12 which speaks of
confirmation provides that only those who have been promoted can be
F
confirmed. Above being the position, the Tribunal and the High Court were
not justified in holding that respondent No.I was eligible. In view of the
"'
T

analysis made above, it is clear that he did not possess the educational
qualification. [Para 12) [132-D-G)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2387 of2007.
G
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2005 of the High Court
of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 7572 of2002 .
......_
S.K. Misra, K. V. Mohan and Anuj Rajput for the Appellant
.
R. Mohan, ASG., V.K. Verma, for the Respondent and Sukanta Kar H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A Respondent No. 1-ln-Person. ""
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred
B
to as the 'UPSC') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by
the appellant-UPSC questioning correctness of the order passed by the Central
-"-
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the 'Tribunal'). I-

c eligibility
3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. It relates to the
of respondent No. l for the post of Deputy Advisor (Training) in
Central Public Health and Environmental Organisation of Urban Development
Ministry.

4. According to the appellant he is ineligible, but the Tribunal and the
High Court have held that he was eligible, on interpretation of the Ministry
D
of Works and Housing Deputy Advisory (Training) Recruitment Rules, 1985
(in short the 'Recruitment Rules').
r
5. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows: '
Respondent No. I is a Departmental Scientific Officer. He took the stand
E that the appellant-UPSC had wrongly declared him ineligible for being
considered for recruitment on promotion to the post of Deputy Advisor
(Training). Appellant was of the view that he did not possess the requisite
educational qualification prescribed in column 8 of the Schedule to the said
'Recruitment Rules'. Respondent No.I, on the other hand, took the stand that
F he was eligible. According to the appellant, column 11(2) of the Schedule
would come into force only if the Departmental Scientific Officer possesses
the requisite educational qualification i.e. a Degree in Civil Engineering from
a recognized university or other equivalent qualification in the alternative.
The Tribunal and the High Court did not consider the effect of columns 7,
8 and I 0 which are required to be read together and provisions of column
G 11(2) of the Recruitment Rules have to be read as an exception to the provision,
and not column 8 of the Schedule. The stand of respondent No. I was that
he was holding the Degree of Master of Science and he could not be expected
to hold Degree in Civil Engineering after rendering five years regular service
as a Scientific Officer. This educational qualification was not required under ~
the Recruitment Rules and that is why special provisions have been made in
H Column 11 (2) providing for only requirement of five years regular service by
U.P.S.C. v. SUKANTAKAR[PASAYAT,J.] 131
y

·f. Departmental Scientific Officer. It is further submitted that column 12 relating A
to the post of Deputy Advisor (Training) indicates the composition of
Departmental Promotion Committee (in short the 'DPC') for the purpose of
considering confirmation i.e. for confirmation of service of Deputy Advisor
(Training). Therefore, the intention of the Recruitment Rules is clear that
Departmental Scientific Officer is to be promoted to the post provided he had
5 years of regular service in the grade and was selected for the post. Therefore, B
a Departmental Scientific officer was not to fulfill the essential educational
qualification of a Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent as prescri!>ed in
columns 7, 8 and I 0.
r-
it.
6. Respondent No.2-Union of India supported the view taken by the
Tribunal before the High Court. c
7. The High Court held that on a proper reading of the provisions and
'
looking at the intention behind making special provision under Clause 11 (2),
it was clear that the same was intended to provide a promotional avenue to
the Departmental Scientific Officer. Accordingly, the Tribunal's order was
confmned. D

... 8. The stands taken before the Tribunal and the High Court by the
y parties were reiterated in this appeal.

9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions various columns of the
Schedule need to be noted. E
I0. In Column 8 of the Recruitment Rules, it is provided that the
educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case
of promotees but not age qualification. Column 9 deals with the probation
period for promotee officers and direct recruits. The method of recruitment for
the post is prescribed in Column I0 which reads as follows: F
i:· "By promotion/transfer on deputation including short-term contract
failing which by direct recruitment".

Column 11 reads as follows:

- .._
"Promotion/Transfer on Deputation (including Short-term contract):
(!) Officers under the Central/State Governments/Public Sector
Undertakings/Recognised Research Institution/Semi-Government
G

' Statutory or Autonomous Organisations:
(a) (i) holding analogous posts: or H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A (ii) with 5 years service in posts in the scale of Rs. 1100-1600 or
equivalent; and
(b) possessing the educational qualifications and experience
prescribed for direct recruits in Col. 7.
(2) The departmental Scientific Officer with 5 years' regular service
B in the grade will also be considered and in case he is selected
for appointment to the post, the same shall be deemed to have
been filled by promotion".

11. So far as the question as to whether age and educational qualification
C prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of promotees is concerned,
it has been clearly stipulated that in the case of age the answer is in the
negative, while in the case of educational qualification it is in the atfmnative.

12. As noted above, essential qualification required for the direct recruits,
is specifically provided in Clause 7(i)(a) to be Degree in Civil Engineering of
D a recognized university or equivalent. The source of recruitment is to be
indicated as promotion, transfer and deputation. The educational qualification
provided under Clause 7(i)(a) is in no way diluted. Clause 11(2) only indicates
r
the source i.e. Permanent Scientific Officer. In fact, in the letter of the
'(
Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation
of October 200 I it speaks of relaxation. Interestingly, in the evaluation done
E by the Union of India in respect of all applicants where the remarks are
indicated, the Union had clearly stated that respondent No. I was not eligible
as he did not possess the requisite educational qualification. In the letter
dated 21.3 .2002 the Union's stand was changed on the basis of the
representation made by respondent No. I. The stand of the Union seems to
F be varying at different points of time. Initially in the application of respondent
No. I it was noted that he was ineligible. Its stand was changed before
Tribunal. Rule 12 which speaks of confirmation provides that only those who
have been promoted can be confirmed. Above being the position, the Tribunal
and the High Court were not justified in holding that respondent No. I was
eligible. In view of the analysis made above, it is clear that he did not possess
G the educational qualification.

13. The appeal deserves to be allowed, which we direct but without any
orders as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
H