Chhattisgarh High Court Strikes Down Sub-Engineers Recruitment Rule Having Diploma As Sole-Criteria
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Courtroom has struck down Rule 8 Schedule-III Sr. No.1 Column No.5 of Chhattisgarh Public Engineering Division (Non-Gazetted) (Recruitment and Situation of Service) Guidelines 2016 prescribing a 3-year Engineering Diploma as sole instructional qualification for recruitment of Sub-Engineers thereby excluding engineering diploma holders–as unconstitutional.
Reiterating that any eligibility standards should bear an inexpensive correlation with the useful recruitment of the posts, the character of the duties to be carried out and the aptitudes essential to fulfil these duties successfully, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held,
“From the character and complexity of the aforesaid provisions, it’s manifest that the exclusion of diploma holders who’re higher with the requisite information and technical expertise isn’t solely unreasonable but additionally counter productive to the target of recruiting competent people for the put up. This arbitrary restrictions undermines the ideas of equity and equal alternative. Even, the identical can also be in clear violation of the basic rights assured beneath Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Structure of India.”
The Courtroom thus concluded,
“Making use of the properly settled ideas of regulation to the information of the current case and for the explanations made hereinabove, the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical) of the Guidelines 2016 printed within the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 is said as unlawful, with out jurisdiction and Extremely-Vires.”
Background
Two subsequent writ petitions had been filed the place the petitioners, who held graduate levels in Engineering, had been aspiring candidates looking for to take part within the direct recruitment examination for the put up of Sub-Engineer (Civil)/Sub-Engineer (Mechanical/Electrical) scheduled on 27.04.2025. The examination was carried out by Chhattisgarh Public Well being and Engineering (PHE) Division (Respondent), whose service situations had been ruled by the 2016 Guidelines.
As per Rule 8 Schedule-III Sr. No.1 Column No.5, the prescribed instructional qualification for Sub-Engineer was three years Diploma in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical Engineering from any institute recognised by the State Authorities.
Nevertheless, this clause was alleged to be opposite to Schedule-II Sr. No.1 & 2 Column No.8, which prescribed that Diploma/Diploma holders each had been eligible for promotion on the put up of Sub-Engineer for five% quota, however for direct recruitment, solely Diploma holders had been permitted and better certified Diploma holders had been impliedly debarred from taking part for the put up of Sub-Engineer. This anomaly arose with respect to the mentioning of prescribed schooling qualification as an alternative of minimal schooling qualification.
It was the case of the petitioner that the challenged provision mandated contemplating solely Diploma Holders whereas within the earlier Chhattisgarh Public Well being Engineering Division (Non-Gazette) Service (Recruitment and Situations of Service) Guidelines, 2012 (2012 Guidelines), the same provision existed, nonetheless, beneath the commercial issued then, Diploma Holder was talked about as a minimal qualification, which implied that Engineering Graduates weren’t expressly barred.
The petitioner additional argued that commencement in Engineering, which is a better qualification than Diploma, can’t be a disqualifying ingredient within the Sub-Engineer examination. As a better qualification couldn’t be a bar for recruitment, the petitioners submitted that the impugned provision, which prescribed instructional qualification as an alternative of minimal instructional qualification and subsequently debars equal and better certified Engineering Graduates, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Structure.
Quite the opposite, the State argued that the Guidelines of 1979, which had been in pressure earlier than the 2016 Guidelines, additionally offered the identical qualification for recruitment to the put up of Sub-Engineer and in Schedule III of the 2012 Guidelines, the prescribed instructional qualification for the put up of Sub-Engineer was the identical.
Equally, the 2016 Guidelines didn’t alter the tutorial {qualifications} required for the put up of Sub-Engineer and as per Schedule II, 95% of Sub-Engineer posts had been to be crammed by means of direct recruitment and 5% by means of promotion from throughout the division, particularly from Tracers and Assistant Draftsmen. It was additional submitted that many Assistant Draftsmen had been initially appointed based mostly on Indian Coaching Institute certificates however later obtained larger {qualifications} like Diplomas or AMIE, that are equal to engineering levels.
Recognising this, the Guidelines (Schedule II, Sr.No.1, Clause 8) permit Diploma/Diploma holders amongst departmental candidates to be eligible for the 5% promotion quota and therefore argued that the alleged discrimination was unfounded.
Findings
The Division Bench noticed that the exclusion of candidates with enhanced information and technical expertise undermined ideas of equity and equality and was in clear violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21.
Notably, the eligibility standards in different departments of the State corresponding to Division of Public Works and CSPDCL permitted each Diploma in addition to Diploma holders for the put up of Sub-Engineer. The Courtroom thereafter reiterated that any classification made by the State should go the muster of intelligible differentia the place the classification should bear a rational nexus with the item that’s sought to be achieved.
Accordingly, the Courtroom held that the act of excluding the Diploma holders for recruitment to the put up of Sub-Engineer within the PHE Division was an “act of discrimination”.
By an interim order dated 25.03.2025, the Excessive Courtroom had allowed diploma holders to take part within the recruitment course of with their participation contingent on the ultimate consequence of the current petitions. In mild of this, the Courtroom allowed the petitions and held,
“Since, pursuant to the interim order handed by this Courtroom, the candidates having the diploma in engineering have participated within the recruitment course of, and this Courtroom declared the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical) of the Guidelines 2016 printed within the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 as Extremely Vires, the respondent’s authorities are directed to proceed with the additional choice course of, topic to the situation that the candidates fulfill different requisite standards as could also be prescribed by the Respondents’ Division within the commercial.”
Case Particulars:
Case Quantity: WPS No. 1983 of 2025; WPS No. 2012 of 2025
Case Title: Arvind Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
