Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. The petitioner has done Bachelor of Technology from J.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University Jalandhar. In response to the advertisement for the post of Trainer Engineering Drawing, the petitioner applied, but his application was rejected on the ground that essential qualification as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post in question was 3 years diploma in Mechanical/Automobile/Production Engineering, whereas academic qualification of the petitioner, as stated above, was B.Tech. in mechanical engineering. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents-State, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive relief:

"That the impugned communication dated 3.1.2020 (Annexure P-4) as well as appointment orders dated 3.1.2020 (Annexure P-5) qua the post of Trainer Engineering Drawing may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post of Trainer Engineering Drawing as the petitioner has qualified the entire selection process successfully in the interest of justice and fair play."

2. According to the petitioner, the candidature of a person having higher qualification cannot be rejected as the higher qualification is deemed to be included the acquisition of lesser qualification.

3. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it is reiterated that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered because he did not possess the requisite qualification of having 3 years Diploma in Mechanical/Automobile/Production Engineering and thus was rightly excluded from consideration.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

5. The following qualifications have been prescribed for the post of Trainer Engineering Drawing in the advertisement notice issued by the respondents:-

"i) Matric with Science and Math from a recognized university/Board or equivalent.

ii) 3 years Diploma in Mechanical/Automobile/Production Engineering from recognized State board of Technical Education or equivalent.

Or

ii) a National trade certificate in Draughtsman (Mechanical) or equivalent recognized by NCVT or equivalent preferably National Apprenticeship Certificate under Apprenticeship Training Scheme after National Trade Certificate with 2 years' experience in the trade.

b. Craft Training Institute Training of at least one year duration in the trade concerned."

6. It is more than settled that essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer, who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. (Refer: Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others 2019 (6) SCC 362) [LQ/SC/2019/828] .

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the rule in question only prescribes for minimum qualification and would, therefore, not debar the consideration and eligibility of the candidate, who has higher technical qualification. Strong reliance in support of such submission has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and others (2010) 15 SCC 596 [LQ/SC/2002/354] .

8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General would argue that the judgment rendered in Jyoti K.K.'s case (supra) is not at all applicable to the present facts in view of the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent decisions, more particularly, in State of Punjab and others vs. Anita and others (2015) 2 SCC 170 [LQ/SC/2014/1047] and Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others (2019) 2 SCC 404 [LQ/SC/2018/1557] .

9. A diploma in engineering essentially is designed to impart practical aspect of the engineering. The Diploma in Engineering is aimed to equip the candidates, who can cater to the practical requirement of engineering with emphasis on the practical works. In short, it aims to train persons for execution of the works and handling of equipments, etc. Whereas, the graduates in Engineering are taught with syllabus which provides theoretical training in the field of Engineering with low emphasis on the practical part of the engineering.

10. In India, Diploma Course in Engineering, is offered to the students and is a short duration course with the focus on training a person in a particular field. The curriculum includes basic theoretical knowledge and extensive practical knowledge and the diploma can be conferred by various institutes who may or may not be affiliated to the University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to 'UGC') or All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to 'AICTE'). The same can be offered even to students after passing their Class-X Examination, in contrast, the Bachelor in Technical Education is offered to students after their completion of Class-XII Examination. A 'degree' can be granted only by the Institutes affiliated to UGC or AICTE. The duration of the course is longer (at present 4 years) and the emphasis in the curriculum is on academics. Thus, in India, focus and the aim of the two streams of education is entirely different with stress on extensive practical knowledge in the case of diploma holders and major emphasis on academic in the case of degree holders. Thus, the Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering cater to different situations and, in view thereof, a degree in the field, in question, cannot be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to a diploma in that field.

11. In taking this view, we are supported by the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Deepak Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2019 (7) ADJ 453.

12. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. case (supra) held the degree to be higher qualification than a diploma, but the said judgment was based upon the interpretation of rules before it, under which the essential technical qualifications prescribed by the Rules for recruitment to the post of Sub Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board were (i) a Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognized Institution obtained after a three years course of study, or (ii) a Certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one of the recognized technical schools with five years of service in the Kerala State Electricity Board.

13. The Kerala Public Service Commission rejected the applications of candidates who possessed a B. Tech. or B. Degree in Electrical Engineering. But, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part I of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956, which clearly stipulated that the qualifications recognized by Executive Orders or Standing Orders of the Government as equivalent to a qualification stipulated in the special Rules as well as those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be considered as fulfillment of the eligibility criteria. Interestingly Rule 10(a)(ii), though contained in the General Rules for State and Subordinate Services, also contained a non-obstante Clause. Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, extracted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K's case reads as follows:

"10.(a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post."

14. It is relevant to note that the prescription contained in Rule 10(a)(ii) of the General Rules, was notwithstanding anything contained even in the Special Rules.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed in para-9 of its decision in Jyoti K.K's case that the Special Rules did not contain any clause for exclusion of candidates who possessed higher qualifications. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the case of the Degree Holders in Engineering. While this is not the fact situation obtaining in the present case.

16. The aforesaid decision was considered in State of Punjab and others vs. Anita and others (2015) 2 SCC 170, [LQ/SC/2014/1047] wherein applications were invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under the rules, the prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a two years' course in JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi of the Matriculation standard or its equivalent. In this background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that none of the respondents held the prescribed qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be treated as a "higher qualification".

17. At this stage, we may take note of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (2015) 17 SCC 709 [LQ/SC/2015/1519] wherein the eligibility conditions/criteria in the advertisement was BSc (Forestry) or equivalent from any university recognized by ICAR. Whereas the appellant therein was possessing BSc degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects and also MSc (Forestry) and it was in this background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that the appellant possessed the prescribed qualification and hence rejection of his application by treating him as ineligible was not proper.

18. In Zahoor Ahmad's case (supra), the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertained to the appointment of Technician III. The qualification prescribed was Matriculation with ITI in Electrical Trade. Some of the diploma holders appellants in Electrical Engineering and diploma in Electronics and Communication had applied. It was noted that in some District Centres their interviews were conducted. The Selection Board held a meeting that only ITI is relevant for the trade in question and rest of the candidates were not eligible. It is in such background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded and observed as under:

"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench."

19. In Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi and others vs. Aarya K. Babu and another (2019) 8 SCC 587, [LQ/SC/2019/1221] the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case pertaining to the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-1). The qualifications prescribed were of graduate possessing degree in Agro-Forestry. Some of the candidates had secured a four year degree in Forestry. The High Court had held such candidates were eligible. However, the matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One of the questions raised was whether the High Court was justified in undertaking the exercise of providing equivalence to another qualification so as to declare it to be equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the recruitment notification ignoring the fact that the employer who makes the recruitment had not considered such degree as equivalent. It was in this background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that any such approach would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess such qualification but had not applied. It is apt to reproduce the relevant observations as contained in para-12 of the judgment, which reads as under:

"12. Though we have taken note of the said contention we are unable to accept the same. We are of such opinion in view of the well established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and thereby include certain qualifications which have not been included in the Notification by the employer. Further the rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been open for the candidate concerned to challenge the Notification alleging denial of opportunity. On the other hand, having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in the Notification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by such candidate is equivalent and thereby seek consideration for appointment nor will it even be open for the employer to change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selection process or accept any qualification other than the one notified since it would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the qualification but had not applied as it was not notified."

20. Discussion on the subject would be incomplete in case we do not refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajith K. and others vs. Aneesh K.S. and others JT 2019 (9) SC 74, wherein the question posed was whether candidates possessing higher qualifications than the prescribed qualification can be considered for the post advertised. The prescribed qualification for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II was SIDC, yet the candidates possessing the qualification of Diploma in Health Inspectors Course (for short DHIC) was also short-listed. The State justified this decision on the basis of a three-member Committee report which concluded that DHIC was a higher qualification. When the issue came up before the Tribunal, it was observed that though diploma course was superior, but to qualify under Rule 10(a)(ii), it was to be shown that the course presupposed the completion of the certificate course (SIDC) which was prescribed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that none of the conditions stipulated in Rule 10(a)(ii) was met. As per the first condition, qualification should have been recognized by executive orders or standing orders of the government as equivalent to qualification specified for the post. As per second condition, there should have been determination by Service Commission of equivalence of the qualifications, in accordance with Rule 13(b) (I). This was not done in advance and an exercise was undertaken only during pendency of the proceedings. As per the last condition, qualification should have been pre-supposed the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post. Report of the three-member Committee contained no finding that the acquisition of DHIC pre-supposed the completion of SIDC (certificate course). Reference to diploma as an additional qualification or that diploma was acceptable in Health Department was extraneous consideration and the judgment in Jyoti K.K.'s case (supra) was distinguished, whereas the judgment rendered in Zahoor Ahmad Rather's case (supra) was relied upon as would be evident from the observations as contained in paras 13 to 16 of the judgment which read as under:-

"13. The decision in Jyoti K.K. concerned a situation where KPSC invited applications for selection for the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board

7. The technical qualifications prescribed were as follows:

2. Technical qualifications--

(a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognised institution after 3 years' course of study, OR

(b) a certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one of the recognised technical schools shown below with five years' service under the Kerala State Electricity Board, [Not fully extracted as not relevant] OR

(c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with five years' experience as IInd Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the Board.

The appellants were B.Tech degree holders or Bachelor's degree holders in electrical engineering. KPSC held that they were not eligible for selection. The candidates contended that they were persons possessing higher qualifications and hence could not be excluded. This Court interpreted the provisions in Rule 10(a)(i) and held:

7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far.

8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.

14. The above extract indicates that the qualification for the promotional post of assistant engineer was a degree in engineering. Consequently, the acquisition of the degree was held to pre-suppose the acquisition of the 'lower qualification' of the diploma prescribed for the post of sub-engineer. This constitutes a distinguishing factor and hence the decision in Jyoti K.K. does not apply to the present facts. The decision in Jyoti K.K. was subsequently distinguished in State of Punjab v. Anita, as noted by this Court in a more recent decision in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad. (See also in this context, the decision of the two judge Bench in P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala.)

15 The Principal Secretary to the State Government (EU) in a communication dated 7 July 2017 to KPSC stated:

"Though, diploma in Health Inspector course having a duration of 2 years is not included in the qualifications required as per the notification for Junior Health Inspector, Grade II in Municipal Common Service, the PSC has included those candidates having qualifications in diploma in Health Inspectors Course shortlist of the said post by taking the same as an additional qualification to the rest of qualifications...

Since in the circumstances that the report submitted by the Director of Health Department after conducting comparison study of syllabus of both the course, the diploma in Health Inspectors course is a higher qualification above the qualification prescribed under the concerned special rule and that diploma in Health Inspector course is accepted as a qualification to the post of Junior Health Inspector in the Health Department, the diploma in Health Inspectors Course can be accepted and reckoned as a higher qualification compared to the qualification prescribed to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in Municipal Common Service.

(Emphasis supplied)

16 The reference to the diploma being an additional qualification is extraneous to Rule 10(a)(ii). The reference to a diploma being acceptable in the Health Department is again an extraneous consideration. Ex facie, it is evident that in coming to the conclusion extracted above, there was no application of mind to the requirements contained in Rule 10(a)(ii). There was no determination of equivalence by any executive order or standing order of the State Government. Nor was there any finding that a DHIC pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification. KPSC has not carried out any exercise as required by the provisions of the rule."

21. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, a three years' diploma in Mechanical/Automobile/Production Engineering and B.Tech. in mechanical engineering are two distinct qualifications and a degree in the field in question cannot be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to Diploma in that field. Consequently, petitioner cannot be permitted to urge that he possesses higher qualification, which would meet the requirement of specific qualifications specified in the rules or advertisement.

22. Thus, what can be taken to be settled is that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall be sufficient for the post. It is only when a person has acquired higher qualification in the same faculty, can such qualification be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. The R & P Rules for the post in question clearly provide for recognition of qualification and not higher qualification.

23. It would further be noticed that wherever the respondents-State intended to make degree holders eligible, it has been so specifically mentioned in the advertisement notice itself as would be evident from recruitment notice (Annexure P-2) relating to post(s) of Trainer Electrician, Trainer Mechanic Diesel, Trainer Mechanic Motor Vehicle, Trainer Plumber, Trainer Survey, Trainer Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic, Trainer Computer Operator and Programming Assistant, Trainer Maths/Engg. Drawing, Trainer IT/Computer Lab, Trainer Sewing Technology, Trainer Surface Ornamentation Techniques (Embroidery), Trainer Front Office Assistant, Trainer Information and Communication Technology System Maintenance, Trainer Fashion Design & Technology and Trainer Fitter.

24. In view of aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.