Puneet Sharma & Ors. Etc v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. Etc.
PUNEET SHARMA & ORS. ETC
v.
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LTD. & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No (S). 1318-1322 of 2021)
APRIL 07, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment – Eligibility – Himachal Pra desh
Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC), acting on the requisiti on sent
by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd ., (HPSEB)
advertised 222 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical ) – Degree-
holders in the concerned discipline approached the Hig h Court in
writ proceedings, claiming that since they possesse d educational
qualifications that were higher than the prescribed m inimum (and
advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration
– The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argue d that the
qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor
can be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the
basis of the advertisement issued by HPSSC – Eligibility of degree
holders for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect rical)
under the relevant recruitment rules – Held: The hi gher post of
Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer) has nearly
2/3rds (64%) promotional quota – Amongst these individuals, thos e
who held degrees before appointment as a Junior Eng ineers are
entitled for consideration in a separate and distin ct sub-quota,
provided they function as a Junior Engineer continu ously for a
prescribed period – This salient aspect cannot be o verlooked; it
only shows the intent of the rule makers was not to exclude degree
holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers
– In addition to these considerations, an amendment to the rules
was made on 03.06.2020 declaring that those with hi gher
qualifications are also entitled to apply or be con sidered for
appointment – This amendment was brought in to clear al l doubts
and controversies and, in that sense, the amending provis ions should
be deemed to have been inserted from inception – Thus, responde nt
HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants,
including the degree holders who participated, and d epending on
the relative merits, proceed to issue the final sel ection list of all
successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc.
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v.
Anit Kumar Das 2020 SCC On Line SC 897; Zile Singh
v. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 3 Suppl.
SCR 400; Vijay v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 6 SCC
289 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 81; Manish Kumar v. Union
of India (2019) 8 SCC 416: [2019] 10 SCR 381 – relied
on.
P.M. Latha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2003) 3
SCC 541 : [2003] 2 SCR 653; Yogesh Kumar & Ors v.
Government of NCT Delhi & Ors (2003) 3 SCC 548 :
[2003] 2 SCR 662; State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2
SCC 170 : [2014] 14 SCR 819; Zahoor Ahmad Rather
v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 : [2018] 14
SCR 1082 – distinguished.
Jyoti KK v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
15 SCC 596; State of Uttarakhand and others v. Deep
Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557 :
[2013] 17 SCR 1016; Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 : [2015]
12 SCR 810; Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors 2019 (6) SCC 362 :
[2019] 7 SCR 94; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal
Office, Kochi & Ors v. Aaraya K. Babu & Anr (2019) 8
SCC 587 : [2019] 11 SCR 627; Himachal Pradesh Staff
Selection Commission & Ors v. Pawan Thakur 2019
(3) Shim. L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v. State of HP
& Ors (CWP No. 161/2019); Avinash Koundal v.
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No.
1155/2020); Govt of A.P. v. P. Dalip Kumar 1993 (2)
SCC 310 : [1993] 1 SCR 435; A.K Raghumani Singh
& Ors v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors 2000 (4) SCC 30
: [2000] 2 SCR 943; CHD v. Usha Kheterpal Waie 2011
(9) SCC 645 : [2011] 12 SCR 398 – referred to.
353
Case Law Reference
(2010) 15 SCC 596 referred to Para 4
[2013] 17 SCR 1016 referred to Para 4
[2014] 14 SCR 819 distinguished Para 4
[2015] 12 SCR 810 referred to Para 4
[2018] 14 SCR 1082 distinguished Para 4
[2019] 7 SCR 94 referred to Para 4
[2019] 11 SCR 627 referred to Para 4
[1993] 1 SCR 435 referred to Para 5
[2000] 2 SCR 943 referred to Para 7
[2011] 12 SCR 398 referred to Para 7
[2003] 2 SCR 653 distinguished Para 22
[2003] 2 SCR 662 distinguished Para 22
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 400 relied on Para 33
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 81 relied on Para 34
[2019] 10 SCR 381 relied on Para 35
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1318-
1322 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2020 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 138/2020, CWPOA No.
3601/2019, CWPOA No. 3633/2019, CWPOA No. 6534/2019, CWPOA
No. 6252/2020.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1323-1324 of 2021 and Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 1028 of 2020
Vikas Mahajan, AAG, Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kaveeta
Wadia, Rohit Prasad, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha
Vij, Vinod Sharma, Binod Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar, Rahul Sateeja,
Prabhas Bajaj, Samir Ali Khan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel, the appeals and petition
were heard finally.
2. Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrica l and
Electronics Engineering is technically a higher qualification than a diploma
in that discipline and, whether degree holders are eligible for appointment
to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment
rules, is the issue that falls for decision in these appeals arising out of a
common judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court1. As is evident,
this issue is not novel and has an almost endemic tendency requiri ng
judicial attention, albeit in myriad and diverse contexts.
3. The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection commission (“HPSSC”
hereafter), acting on the requisition sent by the Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board Ltd., (“HPSEB” hereafter) advertised 222 posts of
Junior Engineer (Electrical- hereafter referred to as “JE”) on 27.06.2018.
Degree-holders in the concerned discipline applied for th e post; after
qualifying the written examination, they were called for verification of
documents but the final result was not declared. They a pproached the
High Court in writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed
educational qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum
(and advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration.
The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argued th at that the
qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither highe r nor can
be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the basis of the
advertisement issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection
Commission. The HPSEB adopted a neutral position; h owever, it
highlighted that per the applicable regulations, the minimum essential
qualification provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.)
was “matriculation with Diploma in Electrical/ Electron ics/
Electronics and Communication/ Computer Science fro m the
recognized Institution/ Board/University duly recog nized by the
Central or State Government”. HPSEB further stated that the HPSSC
could not traverse beyond the regulations, and was bound to make
recruitments in accordance with them. The HPSSC, which issu ed the
1 In CWP No. 138/2020, CWPOA No. 3601/2019 and CWPOA No. 3633/2019 filed by
the degree-holders (hereafter ‘degree-holders’) claiming the right of consideration, and
CWPOA No. 6534/2019 and CWPOA No. 6252/2020 have be en filed by the
diploma-holders (“diploma-holder”) opposing the claim of the degree-holders.
355
advertisement and conducted the selection, opposed the petitio ns and
asserted that degree holders could not be considered for recruit ment.
4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court considered the
parties’ submissions, the position in the recruitment rule s, and various
decisions of this court2 besides its own decisions3, and concluded that:
“40. It would be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that normal rule would be that candid ate
with higher qualification is deemed to be fulfilled th e lower
qualification prescribed for the post. But that hig her
qualification has to be in the same channel, which is not the
position in the present case. Therefore, the guidin g factor
while considering the case of higher qualification is that it
must be in the same line. The degree in engineering is not in
the same line as diploma in engineering and it, the refore,
cannot be considered to be a higher qualification.
41. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, a
Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering are t wo
distinct qualifications and a degree in the field in question
cannot be viewed as a higher qualification when comp ared
to Diploma in that field.
Consequently, the degree holder petitioners cannot be
permitted to urge that they possess higher qualification whic h
would meet the requirement of specific qualifications specif ied
in the rules or advertisement.
42. In addition to the aforesaid, it would be noticed that the
respondent- Electricity Board has itself not consid ered the
degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical & Elec tronics
Engineering to be superior to the diploma and rather treated
2 Jyoti KK v Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) 15 SCC 596; State of Uttarakhand
and others vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557; State of Punjab
v Anita {(2015) 2 SCC 170} Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v State of Jammu and Kashmir
&Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 Zahoor Ahmad Rather v Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad {(2019) 2
SCC 404; Maharashtra Public Service Commission, v Sandeep Shriram Warade&ors
2019 (6) SCC 362; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Kochi &Ors v Aaraya
K. Babu &Anr (2019) 8 SCC 587
3 Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission &Ors v Pawan Thakur 2019 (3) Shim.
L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v State of HP & ors (CWP No. 161/2019); AvinashKoundal
v Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No. 1155/2020)
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
these to be two separate and distinct qualifications and that
is why it vide notification dated 03.06.2020 has amended the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Jun ior
Engineer (Electrical/Junior Engineer (IT) Class -II I (Non-
Gazetted) in the following manner….”
Arguments of the degree holders
5. Ms. Kavita Wadia, appearing for the degree holder appellants,
contended that the expression “minimum”4 was deliberately used without
any bar under the rules and did not prevent appointment of degree holders
to the post of JE (Elect.) in HPSEB, and that diploma was only a minimum
requirement. This, she argued is established beyond doubt from Clause
11 of the Rules for appointment to higher promotional post of Assistant
Engineers (Elect.) where under 5% quota is provided for those who
possessing degree at the time of their appointment as J E (Elect.) and
5% separately for those who acquired degree during their service as JE
(Elect.) after their confirmation. She relies on the decision of this court
in Govt of A.P. vs P. Dalip Kumar 5 which held that the expression
‘minimum’ entitles the employer to choose a person with higher
qualification. A minimum acts as a cut-off filter for the same, and does
not debar recruitment of higher qualified candidates.
6. Ms. Wadia submits that the arguments of diploma holders, i.e.
that the “with” in the rules, is disjunctive (in column 7) - while providing
that the qualification stipulated would be “Minimum Matriculation with
diploma in electrical engineering/electrical & Elec tronics
Engineering ...” -defies logic because if ‘with’ were disjunctive and
expression ‘minimum’ was used for making matriculation as a minimum
educational requirement, then there was no need to use the expression
“minimum” since to pursue the diploma course a candidate has to have
passed matriculation as is reflected in the requirements for admission to
diploma courses in prospectuses of government colleges. In other words,
4 Occurring in the rules, (The HPSEB amendments in Co lumn – 2, 7 & 10 of the
Recruitment and Promotion regulations to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.) Notified
by notification No. HPSEC (SECTT) R&E/106-10/2006-93342-562 dated 13.12.2006
and further amended by Notificaiton No. HPSEC (SECTT)R&E/106-10/2010-22792-
991 dated 25.05.2010) which read as follows:
“Minimum matriculation with diploma in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronics Engineering from a recognized instituti on/ Board University duly
recognized by the Central/State Government for JE (Elect.) post.”
5 1993(2)SCC 310 (Ref. Para 13 and 15)
357
contends Ms. Wadia, the minimum qualification would only be
matriculation in that case, defeating the purpose of the rule, which is
that those diploma holders with matriculation would be considere d as
possessing the minimum or threshold qualification. It is submitted that
“minimum” was intentionally used without any bar under the Rules
concerning the appointment of degree holders to the Post of JE (Elect.)
in HPSEB, making diploma as only a minimum requirement. This is
established beyond doubt from Clause 11 of the Rules for appointment
to higher promotional post of Assistant Engineers (Elect). The expression
‘minimum’ entitles the employer to choose a person with higher
qualification as ‘minimum’ acts as a cut off filter for the same and does
not debar recruitment of those who are higher qualified.
7. It is also argued that the term “with” in Clause 7, (reproduced
above) is adjunctive in the said group of words, since it adds to the
meaning of a sentence but when removed, makes no harm to its grammar.
As a noun, an adjunctive joins two components of same weight such as
co-ordinating conjunctions. It is further urged that, the decision in A.K
Raghumani Singh & ors v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors6 is inapplicable
since the issue there was whether experience requir ed with the
qualification equivalent to degree was subsequent to attaining the degree
or prior to it. To have held that the experience was to be a ttained after
acquiring the degree would have led to “with” being read as “subsequent
to”. Further, this court held that “with” has to be contextually interpreted
and was to be a disjunctive in the context of the said rule. It i s argued,
that in the present case, if the term were to be interpreted contextually
to mean that the diploma would not be a minimum while matriculation
would be, - a construction that renders the expression ‘minimum’ useless,
for diploma cannot be pursued without matriculation and at the same
time renders otiose the co-related Clause 11(v). This is contrary to
purposive interpretation of the Rules, which ought to apply to gather the
intention of the lawmaker. The appellant relies on CHD V. Usha
Kheterpal Waie 7 where this court observed that so long as the
qualification prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has
a rational nexus with the function and duties attached to the post , and
are not violative of the provisions of Constitution or the statute and Rules,
it must be upheld. Counsel submitted that the impugned judgment fell
into error in distinguishing, and not following Jyoti K.K8.
6 2000(4) SCC 30
7 2011 (9) SCC 645
8 Supra, note 2
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
8. It was lastly argued that the High Court erred in applying the
judgment of this court in Zahoor Ahmad (supra) since it pertained to
appointments to the Post of Technician III which is relatab le more to
field jobs, and restricted the consideration of ‘ITI’ Certif icate holders
for the said Post to the exclusion of diploma holders. In the present case,
the relevant post is a higher post of JE (Elect.) of which the promotional
post is that of AE (Elect.). Also, in Zahoor Ahmad (supra) no expression
viz “minimum” was used in the Rules and the same was mentioned in a
note in the advertisement therein, which was interpreted by this court. It
was lastly urged that it is not in dispute that the appo inting authority
cannot defy the rules or make appointments and, or support a vie w
contrary to the governing and applicable rules. However, in the present
case the applicable rules ought to be read meaningfully, purposively and
in a way that is not destructive of the entire scheme and balance sought
to be maintained in the Rules, keeping in mind the needs of the posts and
the State as well as domiciles. It is submitted that the int erpretation of
the earlier rules and the 2020 Rules in Para 40 to 42 of the imp ugned
order is destructive and does complete violence to the intent of the rule
makers.
9. On behalf of the contesting respondents, i.e. the diploma holders,
Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel requested this court not to
interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. It is submitted
that the expression “minimum” is used with the academic qualification,
i.e. matriculation and not the essential technical qualifica tion, viz. a
diploma. A diploma in electrical engineering can be obtained after pursuing
a three years course. That should be preceded by a matricul ation or
after completing a two years study- after 10 thstandard in school.
Therefore, a candidate to be eligible should have obtained a diploma
after matriculation or after 10+2. This clearly eliminated degree holders
from the zone of eligibility.
10. It was argued that the use of “with” between minimum
“matriculation” and diploma operates as a disjunctive. It cannot be read
with the word diploma. It is submitted that only diploma holders such as
the contesting respondents could be considered for selection; their
selections were finalized on 02.09.2020 and the select list was prepared
by the Commission. Having fulfilled the eligibility conditions and after
getting selected through a valid and legal selection pr ocess, the entire
recruitment process was valid. Accordingly, such of the contesting
359
respondents who qualified in the exam and were successful deserved to
be appointed.
11. Learned counsel relied upon the relevant rules to submit that
direct recruitments are made to select category of post s by the Board,
i.e. the Sub-Station Attendant, Electrician and Lineman for w hom the
essential educational qualifications are matriculation with ITI. For these
categories of posts, there was conscious change in the rules with effect
from 03.05.2018 when the words “or any other higher qualification
in the same trade” were deleted. Thus, from 03.05.2018 diploma holders
were ineligible for consideration for the post of Sub-Station Attendant,
Electrician and Lineman. Secondly, for the post of Junior Engi neer
(Electrical), the essential qualification – which is under challenge, is
reserved only for diploma holders. Thirdly, direct recruitment is possible
for Assistant Engineers with regular/full time degree in electrical or
electronic engineering or AMIE or those with full time computer science
and electronics and electrical engineering or its equivalent. Theref ore,
diploma holders cannot be directly recruited either in the lower grade of
Sub-Station Attendants with effect from 03.05.2018 or as Assistant
Engineers.
12. It is pointed out that 15 government polytechnic colleges offer
diploma courses in Himachal Pradesh whereas only three govern ment
colleges offer degree courses in electrical engineering. The student intake
in the diploma course college is as much as 400, whereas the intake i n
degree courses in electrical engineering in government colleges is 170
students. Keeping this in mind, if the degree holders were permitted to
compete with diploma holders, the latter would suffer severely and would
be disadvantaged.
13. It is submitted that a close look at the recruitment rules for the
HPSEB would further reveal that even in respect of highe r posts of
Assistant Engineer, degree holders are entitled to 36% direct recruitment;
diploma holders are entitled to be promoted in a quota of 64%. The
relevant portions of the recruitment rules, it is submitted indicate the
following:
[(i) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station)/ Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/Jun ior
Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Ju nior
Engineer (Telephone)/Foreman in the trade concerned , who
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
are Diploma Holder with 7 years’ service in the grade, t o the
extent of 40%
(ii) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station) / Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/ Junio r
Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Ju nior
Engineer (Telephone)/ Foreman in the trade concerned , i.e.
persons who are ITI qualified having 12 years’ service in the
trade.
(b) Junior Engineers/ Junior Engineer (Sub-station)/ Junior
Engineer (C/Room)/ Junior Engineer (Power House)/ Junio r
Engineer (Test)/ Junior Engineer (Installation)/ Ju nior
Engineer (Telephone)/ Foreman in the trade concerned , i.e.
non – ITI holders with 15 years’ service in the grade (a) + (b)
= 10%.
(iii) From amongst those persons who pass/acquire t he
qualification of AMIE (Section A & B) or who acquire Full
time/Regular Degree in Electrical Engineering/ Elec trical &
Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science Engineerin g.
Electronics & Communication Engineering & Informati on
Technology in service after confirmation to service to the extent
of 5%.
(iv) Drawing Staff
Circle Head Draftsman with diploma in Electrical Engin eering
or Diploma Certificate of draftsmanship from a reco gnized
institute with 5 year service in the grade having w hich 10
years’ service as Draftsman/ Circle Head Draughtsman and
with combined 15 years’ service in the Draftsman Cadre: 4%
(v) Before joining the service as JE who possess Re gular/
Full time degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electri cal &
Electronic Engineering/ Computer Sciences Engineeri ng
Electronics and Communication Engineering & Informati on
Technology from a recognised University approved by AICTE,
Ex Servicemen who have the relevant qualification
equivalence to a recognised degree in Electrical Engineeri ng
or Electrical & Electronic Engineering stream/ disc ipline
recognized by Govt of India or person who possess A MIE
361
qualification in above stream/ discipline from Inst itute of
Engineers (India Calcutta) after confirmation of se rvice =
5%.]
14. It is submitted that the break-up of promotional quota shown
with that of the total promotional quota show that 59% is clearly set out
for diploma holders and those Junior Engineers having a degree, ca n
apply in the 5% quota. This also implies that some degree holders can be
appointed provided they also had a diploma. Reliance i s placed upon
certain extracts of a seniority list, setting out names of nine individuals,
who have both diploma and B. Tech /AMIE qualifications. It is submitted
that such individuals were recruited not on the bas is of degree
qualifications but rather because they held the req uisite diploma
qualifications.
15. It is submitted furthermore that there is nothi ng in the
recruitment rules, either express or implied, which permit ted the state
authorities to consider and process the candidature of those possessing
degrees in electrical engineering but not possessing d iploma. It is
submitted that the impugned judgment quite correctly surmised that the
decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) was no longer a binding authority in view
of the later judgment of this Court in Anita (supra) and Zahoor Ahmad
Rather (supra). Those decisions held that the prescription of a minimum
qualification does not (absent given compelling circumstances) permit
candidates possessing higher qualifications in the discipline, to apply and
be considered for appointment.
16. The HPSEB submits that the rule in question should be so
interpreted and applied to permit degree holders a chance at selection. It
is submitted that any interpretation of rules to exclude better qualified
persons is irrational and robs the employer the chance of c hoosing a
better qualified candidate. It is also argued that the post of Junior Engineer
(Electrical) is technical and public interest demands that the interpretation
of the rule extends consideration to someone holding degree.
17. Counsel for the HSEB argued that it is the inherent right of
the employer to seek out better qualified individuals for public appointment;
furthermore equivalence of qualification is not a matter for the courts to
determine. HSEB argued that the High Court in the present case decided
that a degree is not a better qualification than a diploma, without any
expert view and contrary to settled law. It further argued that the
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
notification dated 03.06.2020 is an outcome of an attempt to rationalize
the recruitment norms throughout the State Government for techni cal
posts in all departments and is an outcome of an exercise beginning in
the year 2019 and has nothing to do with the present litigation, and that
notification is applicable prospectively. It cannot, at any rate be challenged
before this court for the first time merely on the ground that an erroneous
interpretation has been taken qua the said notification by the High Court.
Analysis and Conclusions:
18. The relevant rules stipulating essential qualifications fo r the
post of JE, were framed and brought into force on 13.12.2006; they
repealed the then existing rules framed by HPSEB in 1996. The
notification to the extent it is relevant is extracted below:
19. On 12.01.2007, the All-India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) prescribed that a student acquires a diploma in E ngineering
through a minimum of 3 years of institutional study (after 10+2 Secondary
Examination). Diploma holders were to be academically equivalent to
students who passed the first year of the 4 year engineering degree
programme. On 24.05.2010 by Clause 11 the Recruitment and Promotion
Regulations applicable to HPSEB were amended; they provided f or
essential qualifications for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer
363
(Electrical) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Effective from
21.06.2012, the rules of recruitment and regulations were amended- inter
alia, to the cadre of Assistant Engineer, by HPSEB providing two distinct
quotas in the promotion quota (from amongst serving Junior Engineers).
The existing quota of 6% available to those who acquired AMIE/Degree
in Electrical Engineering qualifications etc. in service with minimum one
years’ regular service after confirmation was reduced to 5 % quota by
the amendment. In addition, the promotional quota to the post of Assistant
Engineer, from the cadre of Junior Engineers (with which t he present
dispute is concerned) was to the extent of 5% eligible for consideration.
This quota was specifically identified as those who had completed their
engineering degree “before joining the service of Junior Engineer.”
The relevant extract of amendments- of 2012 are set out below:
“ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E)
COL. 7 (Direct Recruitment)
Minimum educational and other qualification required for
direct recruits.
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E)
Col. No. 11 (iii) (iv) & (v)
In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, tr ansfer,
grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be mad e.
Note: other terms and conditions shall remain uncha nged.
These amendments will be applicable with immediate effects.
20. By the advertisement in question, HPSEB invited applications
for direct recruitment to 222 vacancies in the cadre of JE (El ectrical).
Several candidates including the present appellants (who are degree
holders) applied. They were allowed to participate in t he written test
and many of them were even called for an interview and verification of
documents - sometime in April 2019. When matters stood thus, diploma
holders preferred an application 9 before the State Administrative
Tribunal. By order dated 21.12.2018 the tribunal in terdicted the
recruitment process. As there was some conflict and confusio n with
respect to the interpretation of the rules on the questi on i.e. whether
Existing Provision Amended Provisions
(iii) from amongst those persons who pass/acquire
the qualification of AMIE/Degree in Electrical
Engineering/ Electrical & Electronic Engineering/
Computer Science Engineering, Electronic &
Communication Engineering & Information
Technology in Service having minimum one year
regular service after confirmation to service
= 6%
(iii) from amongst those persons who pass/acquire t he
qualification of AMIE (Section A & B) or who acquir e
Full time/ Regular Degree in Electrical Engineering /
Electrical &Electronic Engineering/ Computer Scien ce
Engineering. Electronics & Communication
Engineering & Information Technology in service aft er
confirmation to service. = 5%
(iv) Drawing Staff:
Circle Head Draftsman possessing Diploma in
Elect. Engineering or Diploma Certificate of
Draftsmanship from a recognized Institute having
5 years’ service in the grade failing which 10
years’ service as Draftsman/Head
Draughtsman/Circle Head Draughtsman and
failing both total 15 years services in the
Draftsman cadre. = 3 %
(iv) Drawing Staff:
Circle Head Draftsman possessing Diploma in Elect.
Engineering or Diploma Certificate of Draftsmanship
from a recognized Institute having 5 years’ service in
the grade failing which 10 years’ service as
Draftsman/Head Draughtsman/Circle Head
Draughtsman and failing both total 15 years services in
the Draftsman cadre. = 4%
(v) Before joining the service as JE who possess
degree in Electrical Engineering/ Electrical &
Electronic Engineering/ Computer Science
Engineering. Electronics & Communication
Engineering & Information Technology from a
recognized university including AMIE & having
minimum one year regular service in the cadre of
JE after confirmation in the service. =5%
(v) Before joining the services as JE who possess
Regular/ Full time degree in Electrical Engineering /
Electrical & Electronic Engineering/ Computer Scien ce
Engineering. Electronics & Communication Engineering
& Information Technology from a recognized universi ty
approved by the AICTE. Ex-servicemen who have the
relevant qualification equivalence to a recognized
Degree in Electrical Engineering or Electrical &
Electronic Engineering Stream/ discipline recognized by
the Govt. of India or person who posses AMIE
qualification in above stream/ discipline from Inst itute
or Engineers (India Calcutta) after confirmation to
service. =5%
9 O.A. 7397 of 2018
365
degree holders could compete for the post of Junior Engineer, other writ
petitions were preferred. The High Court 10 constituted an expert
committee to examine all issues of equivalence of academic/ technical
qualification and also whether persons possessing equal qualifications
were eligible for the advertised post. The committee by this report dated
15.06.2019; influenced by this Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra)
expressed the opinion that candidates possessing higher qualif ications
were not eligible for consideration. Other writ petitions too were preferred
before the High Court.
21. During pendency of the litigation, on 03.06.2020, the HPSEB
further amended the Rules inserting a provision enabling candidates with
a minimum matriculation with diploma in Computer Science Engineering
or Electronic & Communication Engineering as well as those w ith
degrees. The amendment reads as follows:
“Diploma or degree in Computer Science Engineering or
ElectronicEngineering & Communication Engineering o r
Information Technology from recognised Institute/ Univer sity
established by Law by the State/ Central Govt. OR AMIE fr om
Institution of Engineers (India) (only those candid ates who
are enrolled for AMIE with the Institute of Engineers ( India)
Kolkata will be permanent recognition up to 3105.20 13)
would be eligible.”
After taking into account the submission of the parties, the High
Court by the impugned judgment, endorsed the opinion of the committee
and was of the view that only those with matriculation and holding diploma
in the relevant subject are considered eligible for the post of Junior
Engineer. In W.P (C) 1028/2020, the Petitioners argue that the notification
of 03.06.2020 is arbitrary as it is prospective; in the alter native, they
claim that it should be read as clarificatory and therefore always applicable.
22. The question whether the stipulation or prescription of the
particular academic qualification excludes an applicant who possesses
what is termed as a higher qualification, from their candi dature to the
concerned post has often arisen for consideration by this Court. In P.M.
Latha & Anr. v. State Of Kerala & Ors. 11, the issue which arose for
consideration was whether, for primary class teachers, the p rescribed
10 By an order dated 21.05.2019
11 (2003) 3 SCC 541
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
(and advertised) qualification Trained Teacher Certif icates (TTC),
included those who held B.Ed. degrees. This court was forthright in
holding that the B.Ed. qualification could not be considered as a higher
qualification than the TTC and that the TTC qualification was “given to
teachers especially trained to teach small children “primary classes”,
whereas those with B.Ed. were trained to impart education to student s
of “higher classes”. A similar view was expressed in Yogesh Kumar
& ors v. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors 12 vis-a-vis the same
stipulation i.e., B.Ed. and TTC qualifications. The Court further held in
Yogesh Kumar (supra) that “a specialized training given to teachers
for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared
with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree.”
23. The next judgment is Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public
Service Commission & Ors. 13, where the issue was whether degree
holders could be considered for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in
the Kerala State Electricity Board, which had prescribed dip loma in
Electrical Engineering or SSLC or its equivalent as the eligibility criteria.
This Court took into consideration Rule 10A and inter alia observed as
follows:
“6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
“10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules
or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recogni sed by
executive orders or standing orders of Government a s
equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Spe cial
Rules and such of those higher qualifications which
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualificati on
prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the p ost.”
7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a
qualification has been set out under the relevant Rul es, 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 mus t 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 h igher
12 (2003) 3 SCC 548
13 (2010) 15 SCC 596
367
qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be suffic ient
for the post. If a person has acquired higher quali fications
in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stat ed
to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualific ations
prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be ne cessary
to seek far.
8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Enginee r,
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 ob tained,
obviously gives an indication that such qualificati on is
definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the
lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that vi ew of
the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engi neering
presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualificat ion of
diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, sh all be
considered to be sufficient for that post.
9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma-
holders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineer s but
not all those who possess higher qualifications, ei ther this
Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who
possess higher qualifications or the position shoul d have
been made clear that degree-holder shall not be eligib le to
apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on
the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders
of higher qualifications in the same Faculty, it becomes cl ear
that the Rule could be understood in an appropriate manner
as stated above. In that view of the matter the order [Jyot hi
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, Original Pet ition
No. 9602 of 1998, order dated 30-3-2000 (Ker)] of the High
Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned
with the question whether all those who possess suc h
qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory Rules
have been published and those Rules are applicable, it
presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments
will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware o f the
Rules before making appropriate applications. The H igh
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that re cruitment
of the appellants would amount to fraud on the public.”
24. It is evident therefore, that this Court was of the opinion that
for the post of Sub-Engineer (which can be termed as comparable to the
post of Junior Engineer in the present case), the Kerala State Electricity
Board felt that those possessing degree as well could be consi dered.
This Court upheld the contention.
25. In Anita (supra) this court was concerned with JBT teachers,
where the minimum qualification was two years’ junior basic teachers’
training. Those with MSc, B.Ed. and MA qualifications were held ineligible,
looking at the nature of the job i.e. teaching primary classes. Jyoti (supra)
was distinguished because the appointing authority had the option of
considering appointment of persons with higher qualifications.
26. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) the post in question was
“Technician-III” in the Power Development Department in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant stipulation with respect to
qualification was “Matric with ITI in the relevant trade.” The
appellants held diploma in Electrical Engineering and were included in
the list of disqualified candidates. This resulted in litigation which ultimately
culminated in the judgment of this court. This court held in its judgment14:
“Under the above provisions as well as in the advertisem ent
which was issued by the Board, every candidate must possess
the prescribed academic/professional/technical qualific ation
and must fulfil all other eligibility conditions. The presc ribed
qualifications for the post of Technician III in th e Power
Development Department is a Matric with ITI in the rele vant
trade. The Board at its 116th meeting took notice of the fact
that in some districts, the interviews had been conducted fo r
candidates with a Diploma in Electrical Engineering whil e in
other districts candidates with a diploma had not b een
considered to be eligible for the post of Technicia n III.
Moreover, candidates with an ITI in diverse trades had also
been interviewed for the post. The Board resolved a t its
meeting that only an ITI in the relevant trade, nam ely, the
Electrical trade is the prescribed qualification sp ecified in
the advertisement.”
14 (2019) 2 SCC 404
369
27. Thereafter, the Court discussed the previous rulings in P.M.
Latha, Jyoti K.K. and Anita (supra), then concluded that the candidature
of the diploma holders was correctly rejected and held as follows:
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interp retation
which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596
: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decisio n
in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015)
1 SCC (L&S) 329]. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596
: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule
10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissib le to
draw an inference that a higher qualification neces sarily
presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lowe r,
qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is
a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the emplo yer is
entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condi tion of
eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judic ial review
to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualific ations.
Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter whic h
can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial re view.
Whether a particular qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, a s the
recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti
K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010)
15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a higher
qualification could presuppose 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 [Imtiyaz
Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified
in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Stat e of
J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge
and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not
meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no erro r in the
decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW )
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of th e
Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State,
as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several f eatures
including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite fo r the
efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a
qualification and the content of the course of studies which
leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is
entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public
services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within
the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a
public employer may well take into account social perspec tives
that require the creation of job opportunities acro ss the
societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy.
Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the de cision
in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commissi on,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] must be
understood in the context of a specific statutory rul e under
which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes
the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be
sufficient for the post. It was in the context of s pecific rule
that the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kera la Public
Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
664] turned.”
28. It would be also useful to notice a later judgment of this court,
in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Anothe r v Anit Kumar
Das 2020 SCC On Line SC 897 where the issue was, whether for the
post of peon in the appellant Bank, a degree holder (graduate) could be
appointed, given the conscious decision of the employer, that only those
who held 10+2 pass qualifications would be considered and those with
graduation qualification could not be considered. This court held that the
appointment of the respondent, who was a graduate, after he suppressed
the fact that he held a degree, and did not disclose it, was unsupportable.
In this context, it was observed that as to what qualifications are applicable
to what class of posts, is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the
employer, which the courts would be slow to interdict. This decision too
supports the conclusions in the present case, since the employer, HPSEB
asserts that it considers degree holders eligible for a ppointment to the
post of JE.
371
29. In the present case, what is evident from the rules is that
direct recruitment to the post of JEs in HPSEB is to the extent of 72%.
Undoubtedly, eligibility is amongst those who passed in matriculation or
10+2 or its equivalent qualification. However, this Court is of the opinion
that the diploma holders’ contention that the minimum qualification is
matriculation and that the technical qualification is diploma is incorrect.
The minimum qualification for the post cannot be deemed to be only
matriculation but rather that only such of those matriculat es, or 10+2
pass students, who are diploma holders would be eligible. T he term
“with” in this category has to be read as conjunctive.
30. As far as the merits of the main question i.e. whether degree
holders too can apply for the post of JEs, a close examination of the
rules shows that a lion’s share of the posts at the JE level is set apart for
direct recruitment. However, when it is at the level of the higher post i.e.
Assistant Engineer which is a promotional post direct recruitment is only
to the extent of 36%. Of the balance 64%, various sub-quotas have
been stipulated for feeder cadres; the largest percentage being for Junior
Engineers. For a long time, even on the date of the advertisement, two
distinct quotas (of 5%) had been set apart for promotion of Junior
Engineers holding degree qualifications in the concerned subject.
31. This Court is conscious that the issue in question is whethe r
the minimum qualification of a diploma in electrical or electronic
engineering or other prescribed qualifications includes a degree in that
discipline. However, the rules have to be considered as a whole . So
viewed, the two sub-quotas are:
(1) 5% enabling those diploma holders who acquire de gree
qualifications during service as Junior Engineers; and
(2) 5% enabling among those who hold degrees before joining as
Junior Engineers;
32. The latter (2) conclusively establishes that what the rule making
authority undoubtedly had in mind was that degree holders too c ould
compete for the position of JEs as individuals holding equivalent or higher
qualifications. If such interpretation were not given, there would be
no meaning in the 5% sub-quota set apart for those who were degree
holders before joining as Junior Engineers - in ter ms of the
recruitment rules as existing .
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
33. The court’s opinion is fortified by the latest amendment brought
about on 03.06.2020. This clarifies beyond doubt that even for the post
of Junior Engineers, those individuals holding higher qualifications are
eligible to compete. In the opinion of this Court, though the amending
rules were brought into force prospectively, nevert heless, being
clarificatory, they apply to the recruitment that is the subject matter of
the present controversy. Such a position (i.e. clarificatory amendments
operative retroactively, despite their enforcement prospectively) has been
held in several previous judgments of this court. In Zile Singh v. State
of Haryana15 this Court examined the various authorities on statutory
interpretation and concluded: (SCC pp. 8-9, paras 13-14)
“13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that e very statute
is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary
implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the
Rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is
to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impai r
existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute
sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect
existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective onl y—‘nova
constitutiofuturisformamimponeredebet non praeteritis’—a new
law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the pa st. (See
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th
Edn., 2004 at page 438.) It is not necessary that an ex press
provision be made to make a statute retrospective a nd the
presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by
necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is
made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit o f the
community as a whole (ibid., page 440).
14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not
applicable to declaratory statutes.... In determining, theref ore,
the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the sub stance
rather than to the form. If a new Act is ‘to explain’ an earli er
Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively.
An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious
omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous
Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curati ve or merely
15 (2004) 8 SCC 1
373
declaratory of the previous law retrospective opera tion is
generally intended.... An amending Act may be purel y
declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal
Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of
this nature will have retrospective effect (ibid., pp. 46 8-69).”
34. In Vijay v. State of Maharashtra16, this court held as follows:
“12. The appellant was elected in terms of the provisions of a
statute. The right to be elected was created by a statute and,
thus, can be taken away by a statute. It is now well settled
that when a literal reading of the provision giving retrospective
effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same would
not be construed to be only prospective. The negation is not
a rigid rule and varies with the intention and purport of the
legislature, but to apply it in such a case is a do ctrine of
fairness. When a law is enacted for the benefit of the
community as a whole, even in the absence of a provi sion,
the statute may be held to be retrospective in natu re. The
appellant does not and cannot question the competen ce of
the legislature in this behalf.
35. Likewise, in Manish Kumar v Union of India 17, it was held
that:
“Declaratory, clarificatory or curative Statutes are allowed
to hold sway in the past. The very nature of the sa id laws
involve the aspect of public interest which requires sov ereign
Legislature to remove defects, clarify aspects whic h create
doubt. The declaratory law again has the effect of the
legislative intention being made clear. It may not be apposit e
in the case of these Statutes to paint them with th e taint of
retrospectivity.”
36. It would also be relevant to notice that in the appeal, it has
been specifically averred that the HPSEB has been making contractual
appointments from amongst degree holders in the cadre o f Junior
Engineers, and that an order was issued upon the recommendati on of
the Screening Committee, which through its meeting held on 11.04.2018
had cleared the regularization of 28 such candidates. These degree holders
16 (2006) 6 SCC 289
17 (2019) 8 SCC 416
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]
are equivalent to Junior Engineers, and had been working for p eriods
ranging between 4 to 6 years. A copy of that order has been pr oduced
as Annexure P-10 in the Special Leave Petition. 18
37. The considerations which weighed with this court in the
previous decisions i.e. P.M. Latha, Yogesh Kumar, Anita (Supra) were
quite different from the facts of this case. This court’s conclusions that
the prescription of a specific qualification, excluding what is generally
regarded as a higher qualification can apply to certain cate gories of
posts. Thus, in Latha and Yogesh Kumar as well as Anita (supra) those
possessing degrees or post-graduation or B.Ed. degr ees, were not
considered eligible for the post of primary or junior teacher. In a similar
manner, for “Technician-III” or lower post, the equivalent qualification
for the post of Junior Engineer i.e. diploma holders were deemed to
have been excluded, in Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra). This court is
cognizant of the fact that in Anita as well as Zahoor (supra) the
stipulation in Jyoti (supra) which enabled consideration of candidates
with higher qualifications was deemed to be a distinguishing ground. No
such stipulation exists in the HPSEB Rules. Yet, of material significance
is the fact that the higher post of Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to
Junior Engineer) has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional quota. Amongst
these individuals, those who held degrees before appointment as a Junior
Engineers are entitled for consideration in a separate and distinct sub-
quota, provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a
prescribed period. This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it only shows
the intent of the rule makers not to exclude degree h olders from
consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers.
38. As noticed previously, in addition to the above considerations,
an amendment to the rules was made on 03.06.2020 declaring that those
with higher qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for
appointment. This amendment was brought in to clear all doubts and
controversies and, in that sense, the amending provisions should b e
deemed to have been inserted from inception.
39. For the foregoing reasons, these batches of appeals by the
degree holders have to succeed. The respondent HPSEB is directed to
process the candidature of all applicants, including the degree h olders
who participated, and depending on the relative merits, proceed to issue
18 SLP (C) 10533-37 of 2020
375
the final selection list of all successful candidates, after holding interviews,
etc. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside; the appe als are
allowed and writ petition is allowed partly, in the above terms, without
order on costs.
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed and Writ Petition part ly allowed.
PUNEET SHARMA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [S. RA VINDRA BHAT, J.]