LexSAJID KHAN versus L RAHMATHULLAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 657 : 2025 INSC 251 Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 17308 of 2017) 20 February 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants' qualifications for the post in question meet the standard prescribed in the recruitment notification. Headnotes† Lakshadweep Electricity Department (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002 – An advertisement for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was issued – The required qualification was specified to be a Degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognized university, or a Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized institution with two years of experience – The appellants are all Diploma- holders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, whereas the respondents hold a Diploma in Electrical Engineering – Pursuant to the recruitment process, the appellants were declared selected – Aggrieved, the respondents filed OA before the CAT – CAT set aside the selection of appellants and held that unstated qualifications cannot be read as a part of those which are specified – Writ petitions by the appellants were dismissed by the High Court – Sustainablity: Held: The burden to show that the recruiting authority accepted the qualifications of the appellants illegally or arbitrarily was on the respondents who had approached the CAT by filing OAs – There is nothing on record to show that they had adduced any convincing material evidence to prove that the qualifications prescribed are very different from the qualifications possessed by the appellants – On the other hand, the employer has indicated the efforts made by it in satisfying that the qualifications are equivalent and that Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering is the same as * Author 658 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports the qualification prescribed in the advertisement – The entire case of the respondents is based on the difference in nomenclatures of the two diplomas which stops there and has nothing to do with the core substance of the courses, including teaching, duration, curriculum or the pedagogy – Considering the fact that the employer has not objected to the appellants’ diplomas, it was not appropriate for the High Court to take a technical view of the matter and set aside the appointments – In this view of the matter the decisions of the CAT and that of the High Court are not sustainable in law. [Paras 22, 23, 24] Case Law Cited Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. [2020] 13 SCR 925 : (2021) 12 SCC 390; Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. [2019] 16 SCR 1145 : (2020) 4 SCC 86; Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade [2019] 7 SCR 94 : (2019) 6 SCC 362; Union of India v. Uzair Imran [2023] 13 SCR 1135 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308 – relied on. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [2008] 14 SCR 961 : (2009) 1 SCC 610; District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M Tripura Sundari Devi [1990] 2 SCR 559 : (1990) 3 SCC 655; Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [1997] 2 SCR 896 : (1997) 4 SCC 18; Mohd Shujat Ali v. Union of India [1975] 1 SCR 449 : (1975) 3 SCC 76; Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan [1982] 3 SCR 444 : (1982) 2 SCC 55; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad [2018] 14 SCR 1082 : (2019) 2 SCC 404; Punjab University v. Narinder Kumar (1999) 9 SCC 8; Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union of India [1980] 3 SCR 730 : (1980) 3 SCC 202 – referred to. List of Acts Lakshadweep Electricity Dept. (Group C and D Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002. List of Keywords Qualification; Standard prescribed in notification; Required qualification; Unstated qualifications; Recruiting agency; Equivalence of qualifications; Technical view; Appointments; Service Law. [2025] 2 S.C.R. 659 Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah & Ors. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 17308 of 2017 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2014 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP No. 15398 of 2010 With Civil Appeal Nos. 17310, 17309, 17311 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: S.P. Chaly, Gaurav Agrawal, Shaji P. Chaly, Sr. Advs., Rajeev Mishra, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Saiby Jose Kidangoor, A. Karthik, C. K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K Poulose, Manu Krishnan G. Advs. for the Respondents: Shaji P. Chaly, Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Advs., Rajeev Mishra, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ms. Surekh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.