Excluding Degree Holders Unreasonable: Chhattisgarh High Court Strikes Down Sub-Engineers Recruitment Rule Having Diploma As Sole-Criteria

Reiterating that any eligibility criteria must bear a reasonable correlation with the functional recruitment of the posts, the nature of the duties to be performed and the aptitudes necessary to fulfil those duties effectively, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held,

“From the nature and complexity of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that the exclusion of degree holders who are better with the requisite knowledge and technical skills is not only unreasonable but also counter productive to the objective of recruiting competent individuals for the post. This arbitrary restrictions undermines the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. Even, the same is also in clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court thus concluded,

“Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons made hereinabove, the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical) of the Rules 2016 published in the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 is declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and Ultra-Vires.”

Background

Two subsequent writ petitions were filed where the petitioners, who held graduate degrees in Engineering, were aspiring candidates seeking to participate in the direct recruitment examination for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil)/Sub-Engineer (Mechanical/Electrical) scheduled on 27.04.2025. The examination was conducted by Chhattisgarh Public Health and Engineering (PHE) Department (Respondent), whose service conditions were governed by the 2016 Rules.

As per Rule 8 Schedule-III Sr. No.1 Column No.5, the prescribed educational qualification for Sub-Engineer was three years Diploma in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical Engineering from any institute recognised by the State Government.

However, this clause was alleged to be contrary to Schedule-II Sr. No.1 & 2 Column No.8, which prescribed that Diploma/Degree holders both were eligible for promotion on the post of Sub-Engineer for 5% quota, but for direct recruitment, only Diploma holders were permitted and higher qualified Degree holders were impliedly debarred from participating for the post of Sub-Engineer. This anomaly arose with respect to the mentioning of prescribed education qualification instead of minimum education qualification.

It was the case of the petitioner that the challenged provision mandated considering only Diploma Holders while in the earlier Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazette) Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (2012 Rules), a similar provision existed, however, under the advertisement issued then, Diploma Holder was mentioned as a minimum qualification, which implied that Engineering Graduates were not expressly barred.

The petitioner further argued that graduation in Engineering, which is a higher qualification than Diploma, cannot be a disqualifying element in the Sub-Engineer exam. As a higher qualification could not be a bar for recruitment, the petitioners submitted that the impugned provision, which prescribed educational qualification instead of minimum educational qualification and subsequently debars equal and higher qualified Engineering Graduates, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

On the contrary, the State argued that the Rules of 1979, which were in force before the 2016 Rules, also provided the same qualification for recruitment to the post of Sub-Engineer and in Schedule III of the 2012 Rules, the prescribed educational qualification for the post of Sub-Engineer was the same.

Similarly, the 2016 Rules did not alter the educational qualifications required for the post of Sub-Engineer and as per Schedule II, 95% of Sub-Engineer posts were to be filled through direct recruitment and 5% through promotion from within the department, specifically from Tracers and Assistant Draftsmen. It was further submitted that many Assistant Draftsmen were initially appointed based on Indian Training Institute certificates but later obtained higher qualifications like Diplomas or AMIE, which are equivalent to engineering degrees.

Recognising this, the Rules (Schedule II, Sr.No.1, Clause 8) allow Diploma/Degree holders among departmental candidates to be eligible for the 5% promotion quota and hence argued that the alleged discrimination was unfounded.

Findings

The Division Bench observed that the exclusion of candidates with enhanced knowledge and technical skills undermined principles of fairness and equality and was in clear violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21.

Notably, the eligibility criteria in other departments of the State such as Department of Public Works and CSPDCL permitted both Diploma as well as Degree holders for the post of Sub-Engineer. The Court thereafter reiterated that any classification made by the State must pass the muster of intelligible differentia where the classification must bear a rational nexus with the object that is sought to be achieved.

Accordingly, the Court held that the act of excluding the Degree holders for recruitment to the post of Sub-Engineer in the PHE Department was an “act of discrimination”.

By an interim order dated 25.03.2025, the High Court had allowed degree holders to participate in the recruitment process with their participation contingent on the final outcome of the present petitions. In light of this, the Court allowed the petitions and held,

“Since, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the candidates having the degree in engineering have participated in the recruitment process, and this Court declared the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical) of the Rules 2016 published in the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 as Ultra Vires, the respondent's authorities are directed to continue with the further selection process, subject to the condition that the candidates fulfill other requisite criteria as may be prescribed by the Respondents' Department in the advertisement.”

Case Details:

Case Number: WPS No. 1983 of 2025; WPS No. 2012 of 2025

Case Title: Arvind Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order