Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SITTING AT LUCKNOW Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13804-DB RESERVED Judgment Reserved on: 21.02.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 06.03.2025 Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 74 of 2025 Appellant :- Vikram Singh And 13 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And 24 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ratnesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohammad Danish,Mohd. Mansoor Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi J. Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J. [Per: Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal): 1. Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra and Sri Manav Rathore, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, the learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Prafulla Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Mohd. Mansoor and Sri Mohd. Danish, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.5 to 9. 2. The instant intra-Court Appeal filed by the State is delayed by 1 day as on the date of filing i.e. 14.02.2025. 3. The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we find that just and plausible reasons have been disclosed by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay. p. 1 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 4. In absence of any objection and the explanation offered being bona fide, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Let the Special Appeal be assigned a regular number. C.M. Application No.2 of 2025 (Application for Seeking Leave to Appeal): 6. As the appellants’ interest is being affected by the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court which is under challenge in this Special Appeal, the Application seeking leave to file the Special Appeal is allowed. Order on the memo of Special Appeal: 7. By means of this instant intra Court appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 the appellants have challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 08.01.2025, passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.4610 of 2024: Ravi Kumar Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was decided along with Writ-A No.7284 of 2024: Prabhat Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others. 8. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We have also heard Shri Rajeev Krishna, the Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow (which shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Recruitment Board’), who had appeared before this Court on 21.02.2025 in furtherance of an order passed in this matter on 19.02.2025. 9. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Recruitment Board had issued an advertisement dated 06.01.2022 for making direct recruitment on 936 posts of Operators/Head Operators (Mechanical). The educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement was a 3 years’ Diploma in Electronics / Telecommunication / Electrical / Computer Science / Information Technology / Instrumentation Technology / Mechanical Engineering awarded by any Board in India established by law or having passed any other examination treated by the Government as equivalent thereto. Page 2 of 17 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 10. It appears that numerous candidates possessing Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering also applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement mentioning their qualification as Diploma and they participated in the written examination. Thereafter, the Recruitment Board passed the impugned resolution dated 23.04.2024 stating that it was revoking its earlier resolution that candidates possessing 4 years’ Bachelor Degree will also be eligible for the post in question. 11. The petitioners before the Writ Court had contended that prior to issuance of the advertisement dated 06.01.2022, the Recruitment Board had taken a decision in its meeting held on 25.08.2021, whereby it was resolved that the candidates having 4 years’ Bachelor Degree in streams like Electronics / Telecommunication / Electrical / Computer Science / Information Technology / Instrumentation Technology / Mechanical Engineering will be eligible for selection, as they possess a higher qualification. 12. It was pleaded in the Writ Petition that a copy of the resolution dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Recruitment Board was not available with the petitioners even till filing of the Writ Petition. A candidate Vidya Sagar was stated to have submitted an application dated 01.03.2024 under the Right to Information Act and it was informed in its reply dated 03.04.2024 that in its resolution dated 25.08.2021 the Recruitment Board had decided that the candidates possessing 4 years’ Bachelor Degree will also be eligible. 13. The State filed a counter affidavit opposing the Writ Petition stating that the recruitment is being conducted under the provisions of U.P. Police Radio Subordinate Services Rules, 2015 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Service Rules of 2015’); that in the recruitment notification dated 06.01.2022 the qualification advertised was as per the provisions contained in the Rule 8-C of the Service Rules of 2015; that as per the Rules the right to determine equivalence of qualifications lies with the State Government and the State Government has not taken any decision to treat a Bachelor’s Degree equivalent to a Diploma for the purpose of the aforesaid Rules and p. 3 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 that the Recruitment Board does not have the authority to determine the equivalence of qualifications. 14. The State further pleaded that it was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that it will be the responsibility of the candidate to present the documentary evidence to prove the accuracy, correctness and equivalence of the educational qualification displayed in the application form. All the petitioners submitted their applications through online mode and all of them mentioned their educational qualification as Diploma, although they did not possess Diplomas and they possessed Bachelor’s Degrees. 15. It was clearly mentioned in the admit cards issued to the candidates that they were being permitted to appear in the written examination on a provisional basis and the educational certificates of the candidates would be examined at the time of scrutiny of records and physical standard test. The counter affidavit further states that there is no mention of the resolution dated 25.08.2021, passed by the Recruitment Board in the recruitment notification. 16. Twelve Diploma holder candidates filed an application for impleadment in the Writ Petition, which application was allowed. They pleaded that they possess the qualification prescribed by the Service Rules of 2015 and published in the recruitment notification dated 06.01.2022. They further pleaded that the 4 years’ Bachelor’s course and 3 years’ Diploma course in any branch of engineering are altogether different. They relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Deepak Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2020 (1) ALJ 596: 2019 SCC OnLine All 4471. 17. The Hon’ble Single Judge decided the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2025, holding that: - “16... The Rules as it stands out today clearly indicate that it is only the Diploma holders who are eligible to be appointed to the post of Head Operator / Head Operator (Mechanic). The Board, in exercise of its power to process the selection is an executive body tasked only to carry out the machinery provisions of recruitment. They are not the appointing authority or the p. 4 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 controlling authority of the persons who they seek to recruit. They must comply with various service Rules which provide for eligibility conditions of the candidates who are to be recruited. They are bound by the conditions of service Rule, and they are totally incompetent to issue any clarification with regard to the eligibility of the candidates who are to participated in the recruitment process. Such an order passed by the relevant recruitment board was at the very start arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Subsequently, they proceeded to ratify the order by means of order dated 31.01.2024 and subsequently, in a few days they took a u-turn and by means of the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 stated that they substantially modified the previous order dated 25.08.2021 and further to declare that the candidates having qualification of 4 years Degree course of engineering would not be eligible to participate in the said recruitment examination. When the Police Recruitment Board was aware of the fact that they could not determine or modify or change the eligibility conditions then they should have refrained from making any statement/declaration with regard to the eligibility of persons possessing a Degree in the impugned order dated 23.04.2024. It was only the State government who could have passed any order pertaining to the equivalence.” However, the Writ Court further held that: - “25. The decision of the selection board dated 25.08.2021 declaring engineering Degree holders eligible was questionable, as any determination of equivalence between an engineering Degree and a Diploma should have been made solely by the State Government in accordance with Rule 8 of the said Rules. Recognizing its mistake, the selection board attempted to rectify the error through the impugned order, declaring engineering Degree holders ineligible to participate in the selection process. 26. Such an exercise, carried out during the selection process, strikes at the very root of its fairness and transparency. Determining or clarifying the eligibility of candidates after the commencement of the selection process is inherently flawed, as such matters should have been resolved before the publication of the advertisement. This failure to finalize eligibility conditions in a timely manner vitiates the entire selection process. *** 32. Accordingly, we find that the entire selections which has been conducted stands vitiated on account of the unwarranted interference and passing of orders by the Police Recruitment Board and also considering that a substantial percentage (about p. 5 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 75%) of the candidates are adversely affected by the illegal and arbitrary interference of the selection board. Accordingly, the entire selection as such is set aside. The respondents are directed to finalize the eligibility conditions and amend the service rules, in case they so desire. Once they have taken a decision in this regard, they should publish a fresh advertisement clearly indicating the eligibility conditions for the qualification for the post of Head Operator/Head Operator (Mechanic) and after publishing of the said advertisement they should conduct the recruitment process and conclude the same at the earliest in accordance with law. Since two and half years have lapsed since the advertisement was issued and many of the candidates may have become overage, and considering it is only account of the acts on of omission/commission of the respondents that the present recruitment is being set aside, it would be in the interest of justice, to permit such candidates who possess requisite educational qualifications and have participated in the present recruitment process to participate in the next recruitment process, ignoring only their requirement of age.” 18. The aforesaid judgment has been challenged by way of the instant Special Appeal. The same judgment was challenged by certain Diploma holder candidates, who were opposite party Nos.1 to 4 in the writ petition by filing Special Appeal No.70 of 2025 and who were aggrieved by that part of the judgment only whereby the entire selection was set aside and was directed to be conducted afresh after finalizing the eligibility conditions and amending the service rules, in case they so desire. Special Appeal No. 70 of 2025 has been allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 14.02.2025 passed by this Bench. 19. Shri Ratnesh Chandra, the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal, had advanced submissions in support of the judgment of the Writ Court in that Special Appeal also and the same have been duly considered in the following paragraphs of the judgment dated 14.02.2025: - “15. This appeal was taken up as a fresh case on 12.02.2025 on which date it was passed over on the request made by Sri Ratnesh Chandra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 19, who were the petitioners in the Writ Petition and who are persons holding Bachelor Degree in engineering, that he was in p. 6 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 the process of filing a Special Appeal on behalf of the petitioners in the Writ Petition and both the appeals may be heard together on 14.02.2025. Today also a request was made by him that he had filed the Special Appeal and the same should be called for from the Registry and heard along with the instant appeal but later on he informed the Court that his appeal was not ready to be filed today. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel has vehemently opposed the Special Appeal on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 19 and he has submitted that the petitioners possess a higher qualification of 4 years’ Bachelor Degree, which includes the syllabus taught in the 3 years’ Diploma courses and, therefore, the petitioners are fully eligible for being appointed to a post for which the eligibility qualification is a 3 years’ Diploma. He has submitted that the persons holding Bachelor Degree in Engineering would be eligible to be appointed on posts for which the eligibility qualification is Diploma in engineering as per the National Education Policy, 2020 issued by the Government of India. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties no. 5 to 19 further submitted that once the Recruitment Board took the decision dated 25.08.2021 that candidates having Bachelor Degree will be eligible for appointment to the posts in question, the same cannot be rescinded by the subsequent decision dated 23.04.2024 after the petitioners had already participated in the written examination.” 20. This Court held in the aforesaid judgment dated 14.02.2025 that: - “19. It is settled law that any recruitment to public posts has to be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules. Recruitment to the post of Head Operator/Head Operator (Mechanical) is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Service Rules of 2015’). Part-IV of the aforesaid regulations deals with eligibilities. Regulation 8 (c) falling in Part-IV of the aforesaid regulation provides the following eligibility qualification for the post of Operators/Head Operators (Mechanical): - “The candidate should have passed a 3 years’ Diploma course in Electronics / Telecommunication / Electrical / Computer Science / Information Technology / Instrumentation Technology / Mechanical Engineering awarded by any Board in India established by law or having passed any other examination treated by the Government as equivalent thereto.” p. 7 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 20. Rule 3 (g) of the Rules of 2005 defines that “Government’ means the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 21. It is settled law that equivalence of qualification for the purpose of appointment to public posts can be decided by the employer alone. The employer in the present case is the State Government. The Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly held that the Recruitment Board has to carry out the recruitment as per the provisions contained in the relevant service Rules and the conditions published in the recruitment notification. It has no authority to take any decision regarding equivalence of qualifications. 22. It was in accordance with the aforesaid Rule that the eligibility qualification was published in the recruitment notification dated 06.01.2022. Apparently, a Bachelor Degree in engineering is not included in the eligibility condition either in the Rules of 2015 or in the recruitment advertisement. The petitioners and numerous other persons possessing Bachelor Degrees in Engineering applied for being appointed to the posts in question and all of them mentioned their qualification to be a Diploma in Engineering. Apparently, the candidates possessing Bachelor Degree in engineering had submitted false information in their applications regarding the eligibility qualification. 23. Clause 10 (4) of the recruitment notification dated 06.01.2022 provides that if it is found at any stage that the candidate does not possess the requisite qualifications or he has furnished incorrect / false information / certificate / documents or he has concealed any facts, his candidature shall be deemed to be canceled. If any such fact comes to light even after the candidate has joined his duties, his services can be terminated and his selection can be canceled and he will be prosecuted. 24. Moreover, the resolution dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Recruitment Board was never published and it was never communicated to the petitioners or any other candidate. This resolution was not available with the petitioners even at the time of filing of the Writ Petition as has specifically been pleaded in para 8 of the Writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners or any other candidate cannot claim that although the Service Rules and the recruitment notification mention the eligibility qualification to be a 3 years’ Diploma in Engineering, the resolution dated 25.08.2021 led them to believe that they persons holding Bachelor degree in Engineering would also be eligible as this qualification is equivalent to a Diploma in Engineering.” 21. At the time of commencement of submissions in this Special Appeal, the Court observed at the outset that submissions of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, in support of the judgment impugned in this appeal, have p. 8 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 already been considered and dealt with in the judgment passed in Special Appeal No.70 of 2025. Shri Ratnesh Chandra submitted that in the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Special Appeal No.70 of 2025, it is wrongly recorded that he was representing respondents Nos.5 to 19 whereas he had put in appearance and had advanced submissions on behalf of the appellants in this appeal, who were not parties to Writ-A No.4610 of 2024. He had advanced submissions on behalf of the candidates possessing Bachelors’ Degree in Engineering, although they were not parties to the writ petition. Even if Shri Ratnesh Chandra was not representing the respondent Nos.5 to 19 in the writ petition, he was representing candidates possessing Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering and his submissions have already been considered and dealt with in the judgment dated 14.02.2025. 22. Shri Ratnesh Chandra submitted that he will not repeat the submissions which have already been dealt with in the judgment dated 14.02.2025 and he will advance certain new submissions which have not been advanced and considered earlier. He stated that it has not been considered earlier that a candidate namely, Jitendra Singh, had sent an e-mail communication to the Recruitment Board on 12.02.2022 stating that he possesses a four year’s Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering and he had asked whether he could apply for the post in question. The Recruitment Board sent a reply on the same date, stating that his query had been forwarded to the concerned department and as per the response received, the candidates who have completed graduation in B.Tech / B.E. in Electronics / Tele- communication / Electrical / Computer Science / Information Technology / Instrumentation Technology / Mechanical Engineering, are eligible. He submitted that when the Recruitment Board had categorically informed the candidates that persons possessing a four years’ Bachelor’s Degree are eligible for the post and the candidates participated in the selection process acting on this communication, their candidature cannot subsequently be rejected on the ground that persons possessing Bachelors’ Degree are not eligible for the post. Page 9 of 17 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 23. Shri Rajeev Krishna, Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow has stated that the recruitment process was outsourced to a public sector undertaking NSEIT. The e-mail ID “upprpbho2021@onlineregistrationform.org” was being handled by NSEIT and the e-mail dated 12.02.2022 relied upon by the appellants, was sent by the aforesaid agency. It is wrongly mentioned in that e- mail that query had been forwarded to the concerned department whereas the aforesaid agency had not forwarded any query to the U.P. Police Recruitment Board. 24. A copy of the application form of Jitendra Singh has been produced by the Chairman of the Recruitment Board. Jitendra Singh claims to have obtained the information through e-mail on 12.02.2022 whereas he had already submitted his application through online mode on 23.01.2022 and in his online application form he had mentioned his educational qualification to be a Diploma course in Mechanical Engineering. It is not that Jitendra Singh submitted his application acting on the information obtained through e-mail on 12.02.2022 as he had already applied prior to it on 23.01.2022 and he had submitted a false declaration regarding his educational qualification. 25. The Chairman of the Recruitment Board further submitted that a candidate Nishant Mishra had sought information through Right to Information Act, 2005 on 17.01.2022 as to whether B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering without doing Diploma would be eligible for the post of Head Operator (Mechanical) only or for both the posts of Head Operator and Head Operator (Mechanical). The Public Information Officer of the Recruitment Board sent a reply dated 22.06.2022 to the aforesaid candidate stating that as the process of recruitment to the post of Head Operator/ Head Operator (Mechanical) was under way, the desired information could not be provided during continuance of the recruitment processes. All the information related to the recruitment is published on uppbpb.gov.in website of the Recruitment Board, which can be perused by the candidate. Page 10 of 17 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 26. The Chairman of the Recruitment Board submitted that neither NSEIT was entitled to take any decision regarding equivalence of qualification nor had the aforesaid agency sought any information in this regard from the Recruitment Board. Further, the e-mail communication dated 12.02.2022 unauthorizedly sent by NSEIT to one of the candidates, was never published. 27. The appellants have filed a Supplementary Affidavit stating that similar e-mail communications were sent to some other candidates also and the communication was spread amongst the candidates through social media. 28. Having considered the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the material placed by the Chairman of the Recruitment Board, we are of the view the e-mail communication sent to Jitendra Singh on 12.02.2022, after he had already submitted his application through online mode on 23.01.2022 falsely mentioning his educational qualification to be a Diploma course in Mechanical Engineering whereas he did not possess that qualification, would not give Jitendra Singh, or for that matter, to any other candidate, a ground to claim himself to be eligible for selection. 29. The e-mail communications had been sent by NSEIT without seeking any information in this regard from the Recruitment Board. The contents of the unauthorized e-mail communications sent by NSEIT to some of the candidates, was never published. Therefore, the aforesaid unauthorized communication would not bind the Recruitment Board or the State Government – which has the authority to take a decision regarding equivalence of qualifications. It will not confer any right on the persons possessing Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering to claim themselves to be eligible for the post for which eligibility qualification is a Diploma course in the concerned branch of Engineering. 30. Shri Ratnesh Chandra has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 596, wherein p. 11 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering pre-supposes acquisition of the lower qualification of Diploma in that subject prescribed for the post of Sub- Engineer (Electrical) in Kerala State Electricity Board. He has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puneet Sharma & Ors. v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr., (2021) 16 SCC 340, wherein Jyoti K.K (Supra) was followed. 31. In the judgment dated 14.02.2025 passed in Special Appeal No. 70 of 2025, this Court relied upon a judgment in the case of Deepak Singh v. State of U.P.: (2020) 1 All.L.J. 596 = 2019 SCC OnLine All 4471, wherein the following questions were decided by a Full Bench of this Court: - “A. Whether a Degree in the field in question is entitled to be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to a Diploma in that field? B. Whether the decisions in Alok Kumar Mishra and Kartikey lay down the correct position in law when they hold that a Degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment as a Junior Engineer? C. Whether a degree holder can be held to be ineligible to participate in a selection process for Junior Engineer in light of the relevant statutory Rules? D. Whether the exclusion of degree holders from the zone of consideration would meet the tests as propounded by the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Deep Chandra Tewari?” The Full Bench has given the following answers to the questions: - “1) A Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering are two distinct qualifications and a degree in the field in question Page 9 of 14 cannot be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to Diploma in that field. 2) The decision in the case of Alok Kumar Mishra (supra) and Kartikey (supra) laid down the correct position in law holding that the degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment as a Junior Engineer with regard to the Diploma in question. 3) The degree holder is held to be ineligible to participate in the selection process of Junior Engineer in the light of the Advertisement issued. p. 12 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 4) The exclusion of the degree holders from the zone of consideration is in consonance with the tests propounded by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttarakhand v. Deep Chandra Tewari. 5) The State Government, while prescribing the essential qualifications or desirable qualifications are best suited to decide the requirements for selecting a candidate for nature of work required by the State Government and the courts are precluded from laying down the conditions of eligibility. If the language in the Rules is clear judicial review cannot be used to decide what is best suited for the employer.” 32. The Full Bench had considered the judgment in Jyoti K.K. (Supra) and dealt with the same in the following paragraphs of the judgment: - “23. The next case relied upon by Sri. Khare is Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court was confronted with the question pertaining to the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board as per the Notification dated 21.6.1994 which provided for the following qualifications: “1. SSLC or its equivalent 2. Technical qualifications- (a) Diploma in electrical engineering of a recognised institution after 3 years course of study. Or (b) A certificate in electrical engineering from any one of the recognised technical school’s shown below with five years service under Kerala State Electricity Board. (Not fully extracted as not relevant) Or (c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with five years experience as II grade overseer (electrical) under the Board.” 24. The appellants, before the Supreme Court, were holders of B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering were non-suited by the Commission. The Apex Court relied upon Rule 10 (a)(ii) which was as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the special rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post.” p. 13 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 25. On the basis of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, the Apex Court held as under: “It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, 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 must 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 higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant engineer, 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 obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of sub- engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in electrical engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.” 26. The Court also noted that there was no exclusion to candidates to possess a higher qualification. The above referred decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). In the present case, there is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In the present case, there being no such Rule, we are afraid that the presumption is not available to the petitioners. (Emphasis added) 33. In the present case also, there is no Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. It is settled law that any precedent is to be read and understood keeping in view the p. 14 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 factual background of that case and the points considered and decided in that case. Since Jyoti K.K. (Supra) was decided keeping in view the provision contained in Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 and no such Rule is involved in the present case, the judgment in Jyoti K.K. (Supra) will not apply to the present case. 34. The learned Counsel for the appellants has next placed reliance upon the provisions contained in the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) admissions of students in Degree Engineering Programmes through Lateral Entry Regulations 2007. Regulation 6.1 of the aforesaid Regulations provides that: - “6.1 ADMISSION OF DIPLOMA HOLDERS INTO SECOND YEAR DEGREE ENGINEERING PROGRAMES THROUGH LATERAL ENTRY 6.1 Admission of Diploma Holders Although engineering Diploma programmes are conceived as terminal in nature, some flexibility has to be built in to enable the meritorious amongst Diploma holders to obtain Engineering Degrees. There is evidence of Diploma holders pursing an Engineering programme having performed well not only in their academic careers but also in their jobs. 6.1 (b) Eligibility For being eligible to seek lateral entry to an Engineering Degree programme at the second year/third semester level, a candidate must have passed the Diploma in Engineering in the relevant branch with a minimum of 60 percent in the aggregate: Only candidates fulfilling these conditions would be eligible for appearing in the entrance test meant for selection of Diploma holders for Lateral entry to Degree programmes. The selection of candidates will be based on an entrance test, the merit ranking in the test being the basis of admission. At present students obtain Diploma through different programmes in different States/UTs. Such programmes have different structures and forms like the semester pattern, annual pattern, sandwich pattern, etc. in order to maintain uniformity, a common entrance examination seems essential. Further, it is necessary to select only meritorious students who have passed the Diploma with good academic record. Page 15 of 17 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 A student who has acquired a Diploma in Engineering through a minimum of three years of Institutional study, after 10+ (Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination) can be considered to be academically equivalent to a student who has passed the first year of the four year Engineering Degree programme for which the qualifying examination is of the 12+ level. The Affiliating University may prescribe compensatory courses to make up deficiencies for Diploma holders, who are admitted through lateral entry.” 35. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the aforesaid Regulation, the candidates who have pursued a three years’ Diploma Course are eligible to be admitted to the second year of four years’ Bachelor’s course. Therefore, the converse would also be true and the candidates having passed the first year of Bachelor’s course would be equal to those who have passed three years’ Diploma course. As the candidates having four years’ Bachelor’s degree have necessarily passed the first year examination of that course, their qualification includes the qualification of a three years’ Diploma course. 36. We find no force in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant for the following reasons. A.I.C.T.E. has been constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. As per Section 11 of the aforesaid Act, A.I.C.T.E. has been constituted to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards. The A.I.C.T.E. has no power for deciding equivalence of qualification for the purpose of employment, which power vests in the employer only. As per the provision contained in Regulation 8 (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Subordinate Service Rules, 2015, the equivalence of qualification for the post in question can only be decided by the State Government. 37. Moreover, Regulation 6.1 of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) admissions of students in Degree Engineering Programmes through Lateral Entry Regulations, 2007 merely provides p. 16 Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2025 that meritorious students having a three years’ Diploma in Engineering may be admitted to the second year of four years’ Degree course. It does not mean that the candidates who have secured a four years’ Bachelor’s Degree will be deemed to have passed a three years’ Diploma course in Engineering. Therefore, we find no merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. 38. No other submission was advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 39. We find no force in any of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and he could not persuade us to take a view different from the view taken in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Special Appeal No. 70 of 2025. 40. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the Special Appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. [Subhash Vidyarthi J.] [A. R. Masoodi J.] Order Date: 06.03.2025 -Amit K- p. 17 Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench