Bombay High Court
AKASH SANTOSH DESHMUKH AND ORSversusBRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that the State, as employer, may validly prescribe a diploma as the essential qualification for Junior Engineer posts and that excluding degree holders does not constitute a violation of Articles 14 or 16, thereby dismissing the petition.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) advertisement dated 25 November 2024 for Junior Engineer posts, which limited eligibility to engineering diploma holders and excluded engineering degree holders. They argued that the Recruitment Rules 2023 prescribe only a minimum qualification and that higher qualifications should be deemed acceptable, invoking Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the diploma requirement is a substantive, non‑arbitrary qualification tailored to the nature of the post and that the employer’s discretion is paramount. The Court examined the statutory framework, the Model Recruitment Rules, and precedent, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision in Firoz Mansuri, concluding that the employer may set a diploma as an essential qualification and that exclusion of degree holders is not unconstitutional. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the BMC was allowed to proceed with its recruitment process.
Issues considered
- Whether the advertisement’s exclusion of engineering degree holders, limiting eligibility to diploma holders, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Recruitment Rules 2023’s specification of a diploma as the minimum qualification implicitly includes candidates with higher qualifications such as engineering degrees.
- Whether the employer’s discretion to prescribe diploma as an essential qualification is arbitrary or irrational under judicial review.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 16, Article 226
Subjects
- recruitment
- minimum qualification
- diploma
- engineering degree
- Articles 14
- Article 16
- public employment
- Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
- judicial review
- eligibility
Judgment
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.18052 OF 2024
Vinayak Popat Wale and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11557 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.18052 OF 2024
Yogesh Madhavrao Bodke and Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Akash Santosh Deshmukh and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7217 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.18052 OF 2024
Rushikesh Pandurang Chiplunkar and Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Akash Santosh Deshmukh and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7214 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.18052 OF 2024
Subhash Atmaram Pendharkar ...Applicants
Versus
Akash Santosh Deshmukh and Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Ms Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate, with Piyush Todkar, i/b Sangharsh Waghmare,
for Petitioners.
Mr Ram Apte, Senior Advocate, with Harshal Nahata and Santosh Mali, for
Respondent-BMC.
Mr Vinod Raut, Administrative Officer from Chief Engineer from Chief Engineer
Department, present in Court.
Mr Nishant R Katneshwarkar (V/C), with Sandeep Gupta i/b Shrirang
Katneshwarkar, for Applicant in IA No. 11557/2025.
Page 1 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
Mr Shubham Sharma, with Aryan Yadav, for the Applicant in IA No. 7217/2025.
Mr Tushar Dahibawkar & Co., for the Applicant in IA No. 7214/2025.
Mr Aditya R Deolekar, AGP for State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 08th SEPTEMBER 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Dr Neela Gokhale, J.)
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs: -
“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to allow the
graduate degree holders to participate in the recruitment for the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Mechanical and Electrical) and thereby direct
the Respondent No. 1 to allow graduate degree holders to fill up online application
form with respect to Advertisement dated 25/11/2024 issued by the Respondent
No. 1.
(b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, This
Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the graduate degree holders to participate in the
recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Mechanical
and Electrical) and thereby direct the Respondent No. 1 to allow graduate degree
holders to fill up online application form with respect to Advertisement dated
25/11/2024 issued by the Respondent No. 1.
(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the recruitment process conducted by Respondent
No. 1 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Mechanical and
Electrical) with respect to Advertisement dated 25/11/2024 issued by the
Respondent No. 1.”
2. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin
D. Bhobe, JJ.) issued notice to the Respondents, returnable on 16 th January 2025,
by its order dated 11th December 2024. Counsel for both Respondents waived
notice; hence, this Court proceeded to hear the parties on the Petitioners' prayers
for interim relief. This Court raised three issues at the stage of determining the
grant of interim relief as follows: -
Page 2 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
a) Whether the advertisement dated 25th November 2024, to the extent
of the recruitment to the post of ‘Junior Engineer’, prohibits all
candidates who are engineering graduates from applying to the
position of ‘Junior Engineer’?
b) Whether the advertisement is in tune with the Recruitment Rules
modified in 2023? and
c) Whether there was a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India?
3. The Court, on 11th December 2024, directed Respondent No. 1, the
Corporation, to publish a corrigendum on 13 th December 2024, clarifying that
Engineering Graduates would be eligible to apply, since applications were to be
accepted online as per the schedule published by the Corporation. The Court,
however, added that, as the order was passed as an interim measure, all such
graduates applying for the said posts would be subject to the outcome of the
Petition, in the event they are selected and appointed. Paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of
the said order read as below: -
“27. In view of the above, we find that the first option would avoid
postponement of the recruitment process and would not result in scuttling
the process which has already commenced. Time for filling in the online
forms is upto 11.59.59 pm on 16 th December, 2024. Since Engineering
graduates have been allowed to participate in the selection process, because
they have Diploma certificates, it would be appropriate to allow all
Engineering Graduates to participate in the said selection process. We,
therefore, direct that the Corporation shall publish a corrigendum on 13 th
December, 2024, on its website and in those leading newspapers in which
the advertisement was published, making it clear that Engineering
Graduates - Mechanical/Electrical (M.E.) and Civil, would be eligible to
apply, since applications are to be accepted online upto 11:59:59 p.m., as per
the existing schedule published by the Corporation.
28. Needless to state, this being an interim order, all such Graduates,
who would now be applying for the said posts, would be subject to the result
of this Petition, in the event they are selected and appointed.
Page 3 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
29. The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits on instructions
that this order may be stayed, thereby preventing such Graduates from
applying and the Corporation be permitted to proceed with the selection
process. We find such a request to be unconscionable. When all Engineering
Graduates having Diploma certificates are permitted to apply, there is no
reason, logic or justifiable distinction in restricting Graduates from applying
for the said post. So also, we do not intend to suspend the selection process
or defer it. Hence, we are allowing all Graduates to apply and their selection
and appointment, if any, shall be subject to the result in this Petition. This
appears to be appropriate, reasonable and equitable, at this stage. Hence, the
request for stay is rejected.”
4. Several Diploma holder candidates, being aggrieved by the interim order
passed as hereinabove, took their grievance to the Supreme Court by filing separate
Special Leave Petitions. The SLPs were accompanied by applications seeking
permission to file them, since the aggrieved persons were not parties to the present
petition, and they have since filed separate intervention applications in the
petition. By various orders, the Supreme Court, granting permission to file the
SLPs, stayed the operation of the order dated 11 th December 2024. Thereafter, by
order dated 9th March 2026, in SLP No. 32464/2025, the Supreme Court passed
the following order: -
“O R D E R
As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, We request
the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petition, which is pending before
it so as to decide the legal claim of various parties. The same be done
within a period of eight weeks.
2. In the meantime, the interim order passed by this Court on
07.11.2025 shall continue.
3. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
5. Thus, the matter was placed before us for final determination on the issue.
We heard Ms Neeta Karnik, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Petitioners;
Mr Ram Apte, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Respondent-BMC; and
Mr Aditya Deolekar, learned AGP, appearing for the Respondent-State.
Page 4 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
6. Ms. Karnik raised the following propositions: -
6.1. The Recruitment Rules dated 18th April 2023 (‘Rules’) prescribe
only the minimum educational qualification and therefore candidates
possessing higher qualifications, i.e. Engineering Degrees, cannot be
excluded from consideration.
6.2. Rule 4(B) of the Rules expressly recognises all degree and diploma
holders, demonstrating that degree holders are within the contemplation of
the Rules.
6.3. The Government Resolution (‘GR’) dated 9th September 2021
mandates that recruitment rules prescribe minimum educational
qualifications so that candidates possessing higher qualifications are not
rendered ineligible.
6.4. Clause 7 of the Advertisement dated 25th November 2024 states that
GRs issued from time to time shall be applicable to the present recruitment.
Therefore, GR dated 9th September 2021 is applicable to the present
Advertisement.
6.5. Respondent No. 1 itself permitted and selected Engineering Degree
holders in previous recruitment processes conducted in 2013 and 2015 by
holding that the Degree in Engineering is a higher qualification than
Diploma in Engineering.
6.6. The impugned Advertisement is contrary to the Rules and the GR
dated 9th September 2021 and is liable to be correctly applied and/or
modified to the extent of holding degree holders eligible and allowing them
Page 5 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
to participate in the recruitment process.
6.7. Excluding candidates possessing only an engineering degree, while
permitting candidates possessing both diploma and Degree qualifications,
amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
6.8. The rationale of providing opportunities to Diploma holders, as they
are persons who could not afford or attempt a degree, is unworkable, since
there is no mechanism by which a candidate holding both qualifications can
be filtered out.
6.9. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
i. Jyoti KK v. Kerala Public Service Commission1
ii. Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board2.
iii. Shekhar Kaduba More v. State of Maharashtra3.
7. Mr Ram Apte submitted as follows:
7.1. Respondent No. 1 – Corporation is a statutory body with its own
rules and regulations governing employment, and, as an employer, is best
placed to determine the requirements for selecting candidates. The
Petitioners admittedly do not hold the essential qualification of a Diploma.
A candidate who possesses a Diploma and subsequently acquires a Degree
in Engineering would be eligible, since the candidate possesses a Diploma
in Engineering.
7.2. The principle that a higher qualification is deemed to fulfil a lower
1 (2010) 15 SCC 596.
2 (2021) 16 SCC 340.
3 2025(2) Mh.L.J. 568.
Page 6 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
one operates only where both lie in the same channel, which a degree and a
diploma in engineering do not. A diploma course is designed to impart the
practical aspect of engineering and to train persons for the execution of
works, whereas a degree course provides theoretical training with less
emphasis on the practical, so the two cater to different situations.
7.3. The Petitioners claim that degree holders have higher qualifications
than Diploma holders; the incumbent post is not acceptable, as having a
diploma is the essential qualification for the recruitment process.
7.4. Candidates having degree qualifications but not diploma
qualifications are not entitled to participate in the recruitment process.
7.5. The qualification of having a diploma is not a basic qualification for
admission to a degree course.
7.6. Clause 2 under the Model Rule No. 3 of the Model Recruitment
Rules does not assist the Petitioners as the same are not applicable unless
adopted by the corporation. Moreover, the note below Clause 2 clarifies that
minimum qualification for the post must be prescribed as per the duties and
responsibilities to be discharged by a person to be appointed on the said
post. Mr Apte also pointed out that the qualification required for the post of
Sub-Engineer is a Degree as per the said Advertisement.
7.7. Mr Apte placed reliance on the following decisions:
i. Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. State of Bihar4
ii. Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad5
4 (2026) 5 SCC 363.
5 (2019) 2 SCC 404.
Page 7 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
iii. Vivek Onkar Chavan and Anr. v. Union of India6
Hence, Mr Apte urged the Court to dismiss the petition.
7.8. There are several applications seeking intervention in the present
matter. The intervenors contend that they satisfy the eligibility prescribed
under the Recruitment Rules dated 18 th April 2023 and the Advertisement
dated 25th November 2024. The Petitioners’ prayers seek enlargement of
the eligibility criteria in favour of persons not possessing the prescribed
diploma qualifications. Such a prayer necessarily prejudices candidates who
fulfil the statutory eligibility in the recruitment process. It is also submitted
that neither the Recruitment Rules of 2023 nor the Advertisement dated
25th November 2024 is challenged in the petition. The petition proceeds
on the assumption that an Engineering Degree automatically includes or
supersedes a Diploma qualification, which assumption is untenable. The
intervenors also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mansuri (supra)
and submitted that the controversy is no longer res integra. It is further
submitted that the Corporation consciously maintained two distinct
streams for filling up the post of Junior Engineer and Sub-Engineer. A
diploma is required for the Junior Engineer post, while a degree is required
for the Sub-Engineer post. Such classification is based on intelligible
difference and bears a nexus with the nature of duties attached to the
respective cadres. For these reasons, the intervenors pray that the petition
be dismissed.
6 2026: BHC-OS:19531-DB.
Page 8 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
8. The kernel of Ms Karnik’s legal propositions is that once the Recruitment
Rules prescribe minimum qualifications for a particular post, a higher degree is an
implied eligibility criterion. Thus, according to her, if a Diploma holder is found
eligible for a particular post, a degree holder will necessarily qualify for
appointment to that post. She has based her arguments on the Recruitment Rules
dated 18th April 2023, which prescribe only the minimum qualifications. The
Recruitment Rules dated 18th April 2023 set out the educational qualifications
required for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Mechanical
and Electrical). The Rules of 2023 are annexed by the Petitioner at Exhibit ‘F’. The
same reads as under:
(official translation)
“Exhibit-F
BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Revised Qualifications for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) approved by the
Additional Municipal Commissioner (City) vide No.
Addl.MC/City/4392/D dated 18.04.2023.
(One) By Direct Recruitment (80% posts by Direct Recruitment)
1) The Candidates not already in the service of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
(BMC) must not be over 38 years of age for the Open Category and not over 43 years of age
for Backwards Class categories. There shall be no upper age limit for candidates already
serving in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Additionally, circulars regarding age
relaxation issued from time to time by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation /
Government shall be applicable.
2) The candidates, after passing the S.S.C. examination or the examination equivalent
thereto, must have acquired Diploma of 3 years in Civil or Construction Technology or
Public Health Engineering.
(I) For appointment to the post of 'Junior Engineer' through direct recruitment, Candidates
or Employees holding an Engineering Diploma must have obtained the diploma from only
those Educational Institutions or Universities recognised for the Engineering Diploma
course by the 'All India Council for Technical Education' (AICTE) or the 'Directorate of
Technical Education' (DTE).
(II) In the case of qualifications equivalent to those mentioned at Serial No. 2 above,
candidates holding diplomas from private autonomous colleges must submit an Equivalence
Certificate certifying that the said Diploma is equivalent to the diploma recognised by the
Directorate of Technical Education, prior to the issuance of the appointment order.
3) Candidates must have passed the Secondary School Certificate (Std. X) examination with
Page 9 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
Marathi language subject or an equivalent examination (Higher/ Lower Level) having
Marathi subject as per the criteria prescribed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education.
However, if the candidate does not fulfil the aforesaid requirement and is not eligible for
exemption on any other ground, the candidate must have passed the Marathi Language
Examination conducted by the Municipal Corporation Administration.
4) Candidates possessing the qualifications specified below shall be deemed to have passed
the Computer Knowledge Qualification Examination:
A) Candidates who have passed Class 10 th (SSC) or Class 12 th (HSC) examinations with
Computer and Information Technology-related subjects included in the curriculum
recognised by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education.
B) All Candidates holding any Degree or Diploma (all Engineering streams) recognised by
the All-India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi (AICTE).
C) Candidates who have passed Class 10 th or Class 12th examinations with Computer and
Information Technology-related subjects included in the curriculum recognised by the
Indian Certificate of School Education (ICSE).”
9. Ms Karnik primarily relied on Rule 4 (B) of the Rules. A straightforward
reading of Rule 4 suggests that it presumes that any candidate who passes the 10 th
(SSC) or 12th (HSC) Examination with subjects related to Computer and
Information Technology has computer knowledge. Similarly, candidates holding a
degree or Diploma in engineering streams recognised by AICTE are deemed to
possess computer knowledge. Since computer knowledge is an essential
qualification for the position, Sub-rule 4 clarifies the basis for presuming this
knowledge. Therefore, this sub-rule cannot be interpreted as extending eligibility
to include degree holders. Hence, we cannot accept this proposition as formulated
and canvassed by Ms Karnik.
10. Another limb of Ms Karnik’s argument is that the Model Recruitment Rules
provide that the Recruitment Rules must prescribe minimum educational
qualifications so that candidates with higher qualifications are not rendered
ineligible. She has relied on paragraph 3(b)(II) of the Model Rules. The same reads
as follows:
Page 10 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
“3.b) By Nomination: - ….
(I) …..
(II) Educational Qualification: - The Educational Qualification required for the
concerned post shall be specified.”
Note: - The minimum educational qualification required according to the duties
and responsibilities of the concerned post shall be mentioned. Thus, the question
of disqualification of candidates who have higher educational qualification than
the minimum educational qualification prescribed shall not arise.”
11. A plain reading of the Note to the referenced Model Rules merely states that
the Recruitment authority must specify the minimum educational qualifications in
its Rules to avoid ambiguity about whether candidates with qualifications higher
than the minimum prescribed qualifications are disqualified. This Rule therefore
clarifies that the minimum qualifications must be directly related to the nature of
the duties and responsibilities the candidate is expected to discharge. The mandate
to specify such a minimum qualification is to rule out ambiguities and confusion
among candidates with qualifications higher than required, so that the advertised
post invites applications only from candidates with the specified qualification and a
direct nexus to the job involved. Hence, this proposition is also untenable. In any
case, Mr Apte submitted that the Model Rules have not yet been adopted by the
Corporation and will apply only once a Recruitment authority adopts them with
changes relevant to its requirements. On this basis, this proposition also does not
aid Ms Karnik’s case.
12. Another proposition raised by Ms Karnik pertains to the contents of the
Advertisement dated 25th November 2024 purporting to make degree holders
eligible to apply for the post concerned. Ms Karnik relied on Clause 3.1.3 (B) of the
Advertisement. The same reads as follows:
“3.1.3 Candidates possessing the qualifications specified below shall be deemed to
have passed the Computer Knowledge Qualification Examination:
Page 11 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
A) …..
B) All Candidates holding any Degree or Diploma (all Engineering streams)
recognised by the All-India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi
(AICTE).”
13. We have reviewed the import of Clause 3.1.3 (B), which also pertains to
identifying candidates with computer knowledge. The interpretation of this clause
has already been discussed in paragraph 9 above. We emphasize that these criteria
are only for the deemed recognition of such candidates. We do not agree with Ms.
Karnik’s interpretation of this clause in the Advertisement.
14. Further, Ms Karnik relied on Clause 7 of the Advertisement, which provides
that various concessions, terms and conditions issued by the Government from
time to time through Government Resolutions are applicable to the Recruitment
process and must be adhered to. Ms Karnik, drawing strength from this Clause,
attempted to invoke the GR dated 9 th September 2021 as applicable to the
Recruitment process pursuant to the Advertisement dated 25 th November 2024.
This argument is also untenable, as the Government has framed the Recruitment
Rules of 2023, which supersede the earlier Rules and now apply to the
Recruitment process.
15. Ms Karnik relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court, including that
in Jyoti (supra)and Puneet Sharma (supra), and a decision of this Court in Shekhar
More (supra). Notwithstanding the arguments raised by Ms Karnik and dealt with
hereinabove, the issue involved in the present matter is no longer res integra. The
Supreme Court in Firoz Mansuri (supra) has comprehensively dealt with this issue
and laid down the law in that regard. The Supreme Court while deciding Firoz
Mansuri (supra) has dealt with the prior decisions in Jyoti (supra), Puneet Sharma
Page 12 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
(supra), State of Punjab Vs. Anita7 and Zahoor (supra). The Petitioners'
submissions in Firoz Mansuri were identical to Ms Karnik's submissions in the
present petition. It was contended by the Petitioners therein that Rule 6(1) of the
Cadre Rules prescribed minimum educational qualification as diploma in
Pharmacy and that such prescription cannot be construed as an essential
qualification so as to exclude candidates possessing higher qualifications in the
same discipline. The Petitioners therein had also submitted that the expression
‘minimum’ must be understood contextually as a threshold or cut-off requirement
and ordinarily cannot be used to debar recruitment of candidates with higher
qualifications, particularly in the absence of an express exclusion. Therefore, the
question arose whether candidates holding Bachelor or Master of Pharmacy
degrees, without a Diploma in Pharmacy, satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria
prescribed for appointment to the post of Pharmacist under the relevant Rules.
Answering this question, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“61. Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the employer to
determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of qualifications. The power
of judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative
competence, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts
cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute
their own assessment for that of the employer. The scope of judicial review in
matters of public employment does not extend to questioning the State's wisdom
or policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for a public post.
62. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the needs and interests of an
institution, an industry or an establishment, as the case may be. Similarly,
equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise
of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or
should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting
authority, to determine. The assessment of the expediency, advisability or utility
of such prescription of qualifications do not warrant intervention of the Courts
unless the same are shown to be perverse. However, at the same time, the
employer cannot act arbitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.
*****
64. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the prescription of eligibility criteria of
7 (2015) 2 SCC 170.
Page 13 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
10+2 with Diploma in Pharmacy by the State cannot be said to be arbitrary or
irrational. The State has articulated its rationale with reference to differences in
course structure and the comparatively limited avenues of employment available
to diploma-holders.
*****
66. Merely because there is a provision for lateral entry of diplomates in the
second year of B. Pharma course, it does not render the degree an in-line higher
qualification. A qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in
another. Furthermore, the diplomates have limited employment avenues as
compared to degree-holders. Thus, the decision of the State in making possession
of a Diploma an essential qualification for appointment cannot be said to be
arbitrary. The State has merely identified a narrower catchment of candidates it
considers most suitable for a particular purpose, from within the larger pool
registered pharmacists.
67. This policy rationale finds reinforcement in a decision by the Patna High
Court in Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd. v. Md. Asif Hussain, wherein it
was held that: (SCC OnLine Pat para 33)
“33..... it was a matter of policy to offer the employment only to diploma-
holders who have no avenues that are available to Degree-holders. The
Degree-holders have job opportunities on the post of Assistant Engineers,
Executive Engineers and other posts which are not aailable to diploma-
holders and they are confined only to offer themselves for the post of
Junior Engineers under the scheme of the conditions of service of the
appellant company. Thus, the decision to offer the post of Junior
Electrical Engineer to only diploma-holders does not amount to such
prohibition against Degree-holders that may allow us to invoke Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India in favour of the Degree-holders who
still have other job opportunities.” (emphasis supplied)
68. Additionally, there is no absolute exclusion of graduate or postgraduate
degree-holders. They remain eligible, provided they possess the essential
qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy. No disproportionate harm is caused to
them so as to attract Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.”
16. Following the decision in Firoz Mansuri (supra), this Court in the matter of
Vivek Onkar Chavan (supra) was not persuaded to accept the contention that
minimum specified qualification impliedly includes a higher qualification. This
Court, in Vivek (supra), recorded its clear opinion that no illegality can be
attributed to a recruitment process merely by excluding degree-holder candidates
where the specified minimum qualification was declared to be a Diploma
certification.
17. Thus, considering the facts and the settled legal position, we have no
hesitation in holding that the State, as an employer, is well-equipped to determine
Page 14 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
901_WP_18052_2024.DOC
the desirable qualification for a particular post. The Court cannot go into the
question of whether the desirable qualification is at par with the prescribed
minimum and essential qualification. The Court cannot lay down conditions of
eligibility, let alone.
18. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the clear opinion that there is
no illegality or infirmity in the selection process. Accordingly, the proceedings do
not call for any interference. The petition stands rejected.
19. We are informed that, despite the Supreme Court having stayed the interim
order dated 11th December 2024, passed by this Court, which permitted graduates
to apply for the said posts subject to the outcome of the present petition,
Respondent No.1 – the Corporation has refrained from proceeding with the
recruitment process as a precautionary measure. Since we have dismissed the
present petition, the Corporation is now at liberty to complete the recruitment
process forthwith.
20. In view of the dismissal of the present petition, all interim applications are
disposed of. No costs.
21. At this stage, a request for stay of the order is made. However, having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case, the request for stay is rejected.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.09.30
11:00:33 +0530
Page 15 of 15
29 September 2026
Prasad
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.