Supreme Court Rejects Promotion Claim of GREF Employees Due to Lack of Civil Engineering Diploma

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal by Unnikrishnan CV and others, who sought promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer in the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). The Court ruled that the appellants did not meet the qualification criteria as prescribed under the GREF Recruitment Rules, 1982, since they held a Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) instead of a Diploma in Civil Engineering.

Background of the Case

The appellants were appointed as Surveyor Draughtsman and Overseers in GREF between 1977 and 1986. The next promotional post was Superintendent BR Grade-II, and many of them were promoted to this rank. However, they were later denied further promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer.

They contended that their diploma qualification in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) was equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering and should be considered sufficient for promotion under Column 11 of the GREF Recruitment Rules, 1982.

Arguments by the Appellants (Unnikrishnan CV & Others)

The appellants argued that many of their juniors who possessed Civil Engineering or Electrical and Mechanical Engineering diplomas from CME, Pune, were promoted, while they were denied promotion despite having equivalent qualifications.
They contended that their diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) was equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering and should be recognized as such.
They sought a direction from the Court to be promoted to the rank of Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer.

Arguments by the Respondent (Union of India)

The Union of India maintained that the appellants were not eligible for promotion as they did not possess the prescribed qualification.
They stated that Column 11 of the GREF Recruitment Rules, 1982, clearly required a Diploma in Civil Engineering, which the appellants did not possess.
The rules did not recognize the Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) as equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering.
The Union of India further argued that courts should not determine equivalency of qualifications, as such decisions fall within the domain of expert academic bodies.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court examined the qualifications prescribed under Column 11 of the GREF Recruitment Rules, 1982, which clearly stated that promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I required:

A Diploma in Civil Engineering
Five years of regular service in the grade of General Reserve Engineering Force

The Court found that the appellants did not meet the qualification requirements as they only possessed a Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED). It ruled that:

The prescribed qualifications were clear and unambiguous.
Courts cannot assume or imply equivalency of qualifications unless explicitly recognized by the relevant rules or academic bodies.
The AICTE notification recognizing diploma courses did not declare the Diploma in DED as equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering.
The appellants’ contention that their diploma should be treated as equivalent had no legal or factual basis.

The Court emphasized:

“It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-pension-eligibility-in-contract-employment-regularization/

Referring to Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, the Court reiterated that equivalency of qualifications is a technical matter and cannot be assumed unless officially recognized.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that:

The appellants did not possess the required qualification for promotion.
The High Court was correct in rejecting their claims.
There was no merit in the argument that their diploma was equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering.
The appeal was devoid of merits and, therefore, rejected.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling has several important implications:

Clear Qualification Criteria: The decision reinforces the principle that candidates must strictly meet the qualifications prescribed under recruitment rules.
Limited Role of Courts: Courts will not interfere in technical decisions related to educational qualifications unless there is explicit recognition by statutory bodies.
Equivalency Must Be Officially Recognized: Individuals claiming equivalency of degrees or diplomas must ensure that their qualifications are officially recognized by competent authorities.
Employment and Promotion Policies: Government departments and organizations must adhere to prescribed qualifications for promotions and recruitment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Unnikrishnan CV & Others vs. Union of India underscores the importance of following prescribed eligibility criteria in recruitment and promotions. By rejecting the appellants’ claim of equivalency, the Court has upheld the sanctity of qualification standards set by government recruitment rules. This decision sets a precedent for future cases involving claims of equivalency in employment promotions.

Petitioner Name: Unnikrishnan CV and Others.
Respondent Name: Union of India and Others.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Aravind Kumar.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 27-03-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: unnikrishnan-cv-and-vs-union-of-india-and-o-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-27-03-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by Manoj Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by Aravind Kumar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category