A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal concerns whether Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering held by selected candidates is equivalent to the prescribed Diploma in Electrical Engineering for appointment as Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the Lakshadweep Electricity Dept. (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002. The recruiting authority published an advertisement requiring either a Degree in Electrical Engineering or a Diploma in Electrical Engineering with two years’ experience. Several appellants with Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering were selected.

Unsuccessful candidates challenged those selections before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which set aside the selections on the ground that unstated qualifications cannot be read into the advertisement. The High Court upheld CAT. The Supreme Court, applying settled principles on judicial restraint in matters of equivalence, held that the employer had legitimately examined and accepted equivalence including a contemporaneous clarification from the Directorate of Technical Education, Government of Kerala that the Diploma (Elect./Electronics) Board of Technical Education, Tamil Nadu is recognized and treated as equivalent to the Diploma (Electrical) Board, Kerala.

Given absence of convincing material to show arbitrary acceptance, and in light of precedent restricting judicial re-writing of recruitment conditions, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court and CAT orders.

Keywords: equivalence, recruiting authority, prescribed qualification, unstated qualifications, judicial restraint, Lakshadweep Recruitment Rules 2002.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The litigation arises from a routine recruitment exercise where technical qualifications defined eligibility. The recruitment advertisement mirrored the 2002 Rules: eligibility required Degree in Electrical Engineering or Diploma in Electrical Engineering with two years’ experience in specified fields. Applicants holding Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering were selected and included in a select list (03.09.2008). Unsuccessful candidates filed Original Applications before CAT alleging that the appellants’ diplomas were not the diploma expressly prescribed in the advertisement. CAT set aside selections, adopting a textualist approach that unstated qualifications cannot be treated as satisfied.

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging CAT. Before the Supreme Court, the central factual matrix included a 2003 correspondence: the Lakshadweep administration solicited clarification from the Directorate of Technical Education (Kerala) whether the Tamil Nadu Diploma in Electrical & Electronics Engineering was equivalent to Kerala’s Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Kerala’s Directorate replied that the Tamil Nadu diploma is recognized and treated equivalent per a 1965 Government Order.

The recruiting authority relied upon this technical clarification and on its internal scrutiny when accepting equivalence and publishing the select list. The narrow question for appellate determination was the permissible scope of judicial review when an employer examines and accepts equivalence of technical qualifications, especially where the only apparent distinction is nomenclature and not course substance, duration or pedagogy.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Applicants applied to the Lakshadweep Electricity Department for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to advertisement dated 03.08.2006 under recruitment rules of 2002. The advertisement set out the educational qualification as Degree in Electrical Engineering OR Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognized institution with 2 years experience in specified fields (DG sets; generation, transmission & distribution; internal electrification). Several candidates possessing Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (Tamil Nadu Board) were declared selected (select list dated 03.09.2008).

Unsuccessful candidates (holding Diploma in Electrical Engineering) filed Original Applications before CAT arguing that the appellants did not possess the diploma explicitly prescribed. The CAT, relying on the literal advertisement text, allowed the OAs and set aside the selection. The High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by selected candidates. Administrative history reveals that in 2003 the Lakshadweep administration had sought a clarification from the Director, Technical Education, Kerala with syllabus and mark statements to ascertain equivalence; Kerala replied on 26.02.2003 that the Tamil Nadu diploma is recognized by Kerala per G.O. (MS)-526/Public Services Dept. dt. 17.7.1965.

The recruiting authority asserted it had applied its mind, obtained technical clarification and treated the diplomas as equivalent when finalizing selection. The respondents contest only the difference in diploma nomenclature, not the curriculum, duration or pedagogy.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

i. Whether a recruiting authority may treat a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering as equivalent to a Diploma in Electrical Engineering for selection to Junior Engineer (Electrical) when the advertisement specifies the latter?
ii. Whether courts can, in exercise of judicial review, substitute their view for that of the employer in determining equivalence of technical qualifications?
iii. Whether a contemporaneous governmental clarification recognising equivalence can sustain the recruiting authority’s decision against challenge alleging non-possession of prescribed qualification?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellants contended that the syllabi, duration and core teaching of Diploma (Electrical & Electronics) and Diploma (Electrical) are materially the same; the only difference is nomenclature due to inclusion of electronics subjects.
ii. No material divergence in curriculum, pedagogy or competency exists to make appellants unfit for the post.
iii. The recruiting authority procured technical clarification (Directorate of Technical Education, Kerala) and applied its mind before accepting equivalence; that administrative decision deserves deference.
iv. The respondents failed to adduce evidence showing any substantive disparity; their grievance rests solely on nomenclature and hindsight.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The respondents submitted that recruitment must adhere strictly to advertised qualifications; equivalence cannot be implied.
ii. Deviating from the precise wording of the advertisement amounts to unfairness and could have deprived eligible candidates of opportunity to apply.
iii. Judicially recognized authorities (e.g., Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal) hold that courts must enforce exactness when rules are clear.
iv. Allowing unstated qualifications undermines transparency and invites “fraud on the public” as per District Collector v. Tripura Sundari Devi.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Lakshadweep Electricity Dept. (Group C & D Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002 — Schedule prescribing educational qualifications.
ii. Administrative circulars/clarifications from Directorate of Technical Education (Kerala) recognizing inter-State diploma equivalence (e.g., G.O. (MS)-526/Public Services Dept. dt. 17.7.1965 referenced in Kerala letter of 26.02.2003).
iii. Judicial principles on equivalence and employer’s primacy: Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021) 12 SCC 390; Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2020) 4 SCC 86; Union of India v. Uzair Imran (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308).

I) JUDGMENT 

The Court framed the controversy as a question of recruitment jurisprudence well-traversed by precedents emphasizing restraint in judicial interference over employer’s assessment of equivalence. The Court noted the administrative chronology: the Lakshadweep administration proactively sought a technical clarification from the Kerala Directorate in 2003 about equivalence between the Tamil Nadu Diploma (Electrical & Electronics) and the Kerala Diploma (Electrical); Kerala’s Directorate responded that the Tamil Nadu diploma is recognized and treated equivalent per earlier G.O. The recruiting authority thereafter issued the advertisement in 2006, and after scrutiny declared the appellants selected in 2008.

The Court emphasized that the respondents bore the burden to show that acceptance of the appellants’ qualifications was arbitrary or illegal; they failed to produce convincing material evidencing substantive difference in the courses. Reiterating settled law, the Court held that the power to scrutinise and decide equivalence primarily lies with the employer; courts should not substitute their technical judgment unless the employer’s decision is shown to be perverse, arbitrary or without application of mind. Authorities such as Anand Yadav, Mukul Kumar Tyagi and Maharashtra PSC v. Sandeep Warade were applied to reiterate that equivalence issues ordinarily fall outside judicial domain.

The High Court’s and CAT’s literalist approach focusing on nomenclature alone and ignoring administrative clarification and internal scrutiny was held to be overly technical and therefore unsustainable. On this basis the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and reinstated selections.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The core ratio is that when a recruiting authority, after due scrutiny and on the basis of credible technical clarification, accepts that a candidate’s diploma is equivalent to the prescribed qualification, courts must exercise restraint and decline to substitute their own technical view.

The burden to prove arbitrariness rests on the challenger. Mere difference in nomenclature, absent evidence of substantive curricular divergence, does not invalidate the employer’s reasonable decision. Judicial review is confined to testing for mala fides, perversity, or lack of application of mind by the employer, not re-evaluation of technical equivalence.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The judgment reiterated several ancillary observations:

(i) recruiting authorities are best placed to define job-related qualification needs and may seek expert or inter-departmental clarifications;

(ii) when advertisement language mirrors recruitment rules but the administration has contemporaneous clarifications recognizing equivalence, those administrative acts should inform interpretation of the advertisement;

(iii) courts should be cautious of taking an “overly technical” view that defeats the spirit and object of recruitment rules (citing Uma Shankar Sharma).

c. GUIDELINES

i. Recruiting authorities should document the process of scrutiny and any technical clarifications relied upon when treating qualifications as equivalent.
ii. Candidates challenging equivalence must adduce material evidence demonstrating substantive difference in curriculum, duration, pedagogy or competencies to rebut the employer’s decision.
iii. Courts must defer to the appointing authority’s informed decision on equivalence unless demonstrable arbitrariness or mala fides is shown.
iv. Advertisements should ideally indicate if equivalence or inter-board recognitions will be considered, to enhance transparency.
v. Where an ambiguity arises, courts may remit the matter to the employer for reconsideration rather than re-writing recruitment conditions.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision underscores the governed balance between rule-bound recruitment and pragmatic administrative assessment. It reaffirms that employers occupy the primary role in technical assessment of qualification equivalence and that courts should not adopt an academic literalism that frustrates public employment objectives. Practically, the judgment places evidentiary burden upon challengers to demonstrate substantive curricular discrepancy and encourages recruiting agencies to maintain contemporaneous records of technical consultations and recognition letters.

For litigators, the case is a caution that challenges premised solely on nomenclature, without comparative syllabus and pedagogical analysis, are unlikely to succeed. The ruling aligns with a line of precedents that protect administrative discretion in suitability assessments while preserving judicial oversight against arbitrariness.

K) REFERENCES 

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Anand Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 390.
2. Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86.
3. Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362.
4. Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308.
5. Guru Nanak Dev Univ. v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610.
6. District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655.
7. Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18.
8. Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 202.
9. Punjab University v. Narinder Kumar, (1999) 9 SCC 8.
10. Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76.
11. Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 2 SCC 55.
12. Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404.
13. Sajid Khan v. L. Rahmathullah & Ors., 2025 INSC 251; [2025] 2 S.C.R. 657.

b) Important Statutes / Rules Referred

1. Lakshadweep Electricity Dept. (Group C & D Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002. (Schedule specifying educational qualifications).