IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (C) @D. NO.14022 OF 2025

Gaurav Kumar Sharma & Ors. …Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Here is another instance of conflict between the engineering graduates and the diploma holders, where the degree holders claim theirs to be a higher qualification, so as to compete along with diplomates in a selection wherein the rules specifically provides the essential qualification as diploma. The selection was made by the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment and

Promotion Board, Lucknow1 to the post of Head Operator/Head operator (Mechanic) in the Police Department. The advertisement was issued on 06.01.2022; Clause 3.2 of which clearly indicates the qualification as prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Subordinate Service Rule, 20152 . Clause 8(c) of the Rules provide for the following qualification:

"(c) Head Operator/Head Operator (Mechanic) –

Candidate should have passed three years diploma course in Electronics/ Telecommunication/ Electrical/ Computer Science/Information Technology / Instrumentation Technology / Mechanical Engineering by a board

<span id="page-1-0"></span>^{1 &}quot;the Board"

<span id="page-1-1"></span>^{2 &}quot;the Rules"

established by law in India or a qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto."

2. Whether the degree is recognised as equivalent as per the Rules and in the context of the Board having recognized it as equivalent, whether it was permissible for the Board to cancel such equivalence, midway to the selection are the questions raised before us.

3. The learned Single Judge found that the equivalence was not in accordance with the Rules; since the Board did not have the power to grant equivalence, which is in the exclusive domain of the State Government. However, the learned Single Judge found that the Resolution of the Board created confusion in the minds of the candidates, resulting in the degree holders being the major chunk of the candidates appearing for the written examination for selection. The learned Single Judge also deprecated the Resolution of the Board, cancelling the equivalence granted earlier, noticing the decisions of this Court which frowned upon and set aside any tinkering of eligibility criteria after commencement of the recruitment process; when such process is midway. The entire selection was set aside and the Board was directed to finalise the eligibility condition, once and for all and call for a new selection; in which persons who participated in the present selection were to be granted age relaxation.

4. The Division Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge that equivalence of qualification lies exclusively with the State Government, in which context the Board Resolution was of no consequence. Finding that any recruitment to public posts has to be carried on strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules, Clause 8 (c) of the Rules was emphasised to find eligibility only on the diploma holders in the various branches specified therein. It was held that merely because of a large number of ineligible persons; graduate engineers, having participated in the selection process, that alone cannot result in the entire selection being set aside. The appeal was partly allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent the entire

selection process was jettisoned and restoring it, enabling finalization with the eligible diploma holders alone; while upholding the finding on the ineligibility of the graduate engineers.

5. Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners took us through the Rules and pointed out the power to grant equivalence; which was exercised by the Board by Resolution dated 25.08.2021, long before the advertisement was issued on 06.01.2022. The same was reiterated after the advertisement was issued and then cancelled by a Resolution dated 23.04.2024; which is in the teeth of the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak & others v. Rajasthan High Court & others3 ,

<span id="page-5-0"></span>3 (2013) 4 SCC 540

having altered the eligibility condition midway the recruitment process.

6. Having given our anxious consideration, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the High Court in appeal. As has been rightly found by both the Courts, the equivalence to the qualification has to be recognised by the Government and not by the Board. The Resolution of the Board, recognising four year graduate degree in the subjects specified in the Rules; to be eligible for the post on the basis of the graduate degree being a higher qualification, cannot be countenanced or sustained in the teeth of the power conferred exclusively on the Government. If the Resolution dated 25.08.2021 of the Board providing equivalence is not sustainable, then there is no question arising of the rigor of change being made midway to the recruitment process. The principle is not attracted to the cancellation of the eligibility conferred on the graduate engineers; which conferment itself was without jurisdiction. The Rules are explicit insofar as diploma holders are only eligible to participate in the selection process and seek for appointment to the post. The equivalence to such qualification being within the exclusive domain of the Government, which power in the present case has not been exercised at all, the graduate engineers are not eligible. The advertisement is also in accordance with the Rules and the contention of the petitioners that they applied based on the Resolution of the Board is only to be

noticed, to be rejected. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition(s) and the same stands rejected.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………..……………, J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

……………………..……………, J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI; March 24, 2025.