Safiya Malik

The High Court of Uttarakhand Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay has dismissed a writ petition challenging the amendment of recruitment rules which permitted candidates holding a Master’s degree in Geology to be eligible for appointment as Mines Officer. The Court held that the prescription of educational qualifications is within the exclusive domain of the employer, and judicial interference in such decisions is not warranted unless arbitrariness is clearly demonstrated.

The Court directed that the writ petition seeking to declare the amended recruitment rules as arbitrary and unconstitutional was devoid of merit and therefore stands dismissed. The Bench further clarified that the eligibility for the post had not been taken away from Mining Engineering graduates but had only been expanded to include candidates from the Geology discipline as well.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Dignity In Divorce | Divorced Wife Who Remained Unmarried Entitled To Maintain Marital Standard Of Living

The petitioner, holding a B. Tech. degree in Mining Engineering, filed the writ petition seeking multiple reliefs under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The main grievance cantered around the State Government’s amendment to the Uttarakhand Geology and Mining Service Rules via the Second Amendment Rules, 2015. By this amendment, candidates possessing a Master’s degree in Geology were made eligible for the post of Mines Officer.

Earlier, only candidates with a degree or diploma in Mining Engineering were eligible for the post. According to the petitioner, the inclusion of Geology postgraduates diluted the value of a Mining Engineering degree and unfairly created additional competition, thereby reducing opportunities for Mining Engineering graduates.

The petitioner sought the following specific reliefs from the Court:

1. A writ of Mandamus declaring "The Uttarakhand Geology and Mining Service (Second Amendment), Rules 2015" as arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and consequently striking it down.

1. In the alternative, a writ of Mandamus declaring Paragraph Three of sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 of "The Uttar Pradesh Geology and Mining Service Rules, 1983" as amended by the 2015 Rules, as unconstitutional.

III. A declaration that a Master’s degree in Geology is not an appropriate qualification for the post of Mines Officer.

1. A declaration that the amended rules, which introduced new eligibility for Geology graduates and thus reduced opportunities for Mining Engineering graduates, are arbitrary and violative of the Constitution.

In support of the claim, the petitioner contended that Geology graduates already have multiple avenues for employment in departments such as the State Public Works Department, Central Public Works Department, and others. In contrast, Mining Engineering graduates, according to the petitioner, primarily rely on the Department of Geology and Mining for employment opportunities.

The petitioner further argued that the inclusion of Geology postgraduates was an arbitrary policy shift by the State that was not backed by any necessity or rationale and thus violated the principle of equality before law.

The State Government, represented by its Additional Chief Standing Counsel, defended the amendment. It asserted that determining the eligibility criteria for public employment is a matter of policy, and the employer is in the best position to decide the qualifications suitable for particular posts.

The State contended that inclusion of a Master's degree in Geology as a qualification for the post of Mines Officer was a policy decision made after due consideration of the department’s needs and functional requirements.

The Division Bench began by stating that there was no ground for judicial interference in the recruitment rules. "Every employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications needed for appointment to a particular post, as he knows the job requirement and he has to take work from the employees. This right, which is available to every employer, cannot be denied to State Government."

In support of its conclusion, the Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, stating: "It is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post."

The Court also referred to Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362, observing: "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."

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s reliance on E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, and noted: "The principle laid down in the said judgment is not applicable here, as prescription of educational qualification for appointment to a post is the sole prerogative of employer."

On the contention that inclusion of Geology degree reduces the employment opportunity for Mining Engineering graduates, the Court held: "Addition of Master’s Degree in Geology as one of the qualification needed for appointment as Mines Officer cannot be said to be arbitrary merely because it may have the effect of reducing the chance of appointment of a candidate with degree in Mining Engineering."

Also Read: Rule 16.38 Of PCA Has No Application Where FIR Is Registered | Departmental Inquiry Can Proceed Independently In Corruption Cases Says Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Court recorded that it was not a case where Mining Engineering graduates were excluded. The eligibility of the petitioner remained intact; only the field of eligible candidates had expanded.

"It is not a case where right to be considered for appointment has been altogether taken away from candidates having degree in Mining Engineering. Petitioner himself admits that with degree in Mining Engineering, he is eligible for appointment as Mines Officer."

The Court dismissed the writ petition. It recorded:

"Since the employer has taken a conscious decision to include Geology qualification holders in the field of eligibility for appointment as Mines Officer, therefore, in the absence of any valid ground for challenging such inclusion, this Court do not find any reason to interfere."

Accordingly, the Bench declared: "Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel

Case Title: Pramod Kumar alias Promod Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & others

Case Number: Writ Petition Service Bench No. 91 of 2016

Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay

[Read/Download order]