Page No.# 1/21 GAHC010196372022 2025:GAU-AS:4841 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 6311/2022 1. Ms. Ismat Jasmin D/O- Khasru Ahmed, R/O- Village Balir Bond, P.O and P.S- Ram Krishna Nagar, Dist- Karimganj, Assam, PIN-788166. ..............................Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. The State of Assam Rep by the Principal Secretary Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006. 2. The Secretary to the Government of Assam Panchayat and Rural Development Department Dispur, Guwahati- 781006. 3. The Commissioner Panchayat and Rural Development Department Assam, Juripar, Panjabari Guwahati-781037. 4.The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara Guwahati-22 Page No.# 2/21 Represented By Its Chairman 5.The Secretary To The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati-22 6.The Under Secretary The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati-22 7.The Principal Controller Of Examination The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Khanapara Guwahati-22 8.PCPS Girls Polytechnic (Formerly Known As Girls Polytechnic) Rep. by Its Principal Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-781021 9.Darshana Sharma Roll No-60649 10.Silpi Sikha Saikia Roll No-21351 11.Nayani Deka Roll No-61892 12.Pragati Goswami Roll No-62136 13.Shehnaz Parveen Mazumdar Roll No-10582 14.Sudipta Sikha Saikia Roll No-21388 15.Jyotismita Kashyap Roll No-61286 16.Kabita Kashyap Roll No-61294 Page No.# 3/21 17.Anindita Das Roll No-60191 18.Bisteerna Medhi Roll No-60555 19.Rimli Das Roll No-62387 20.Salma Sultana Roll No-62545 Respondent No-9 to No-20 May Be Served Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department Government of Assam, Dispur Guwahati-78100. .......................Respondents With WP(C) 6305/2022 1. Ms. Deepamoni Sonowal D/O- Dinanath Sonowal R/O- Village Boragadhoi Gaon P.O- Muluk Gaon P.S- Chabua Dist- Dibrugarh Assam, PIN-786189 ..............................Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Assam Rep by the Principal Secretary Government of Assam Panchayat and Rural Development Department Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 2.The Secretary to the Government of Assam Panchayat and Rural Development Department Page No.# 4/21 Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 3.The Commissioner Panchayat and Rural Development Department Assam, Juripar, Panjabari Guwahati-781037. 4.The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati-22 Represented By Its Chairman 5.The Secretary To The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati-22 6.The Under Secretary The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Jawahar Nagar Khanapara, Guwahati-22 7.The Principal Controller Of Examination The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Khanapara Guwahati-22 8. PCPS Girls Polytechnic (Formerly Known As Girls Polytechnic) Rep. by its Principal Bamunimaidam Guwahati-781021 9. Rukmini Sonowal Roll No-40375 10. Bidyaboti Bijoy Lakhi Deori Roll No-40067 11. Rashmi Barman Roll No-10470 Page No.# 5/21 12. Samaina Brahma Roll No-50569 13. Khanthai Basumatary Roll No-50315 14. ChimpyLalung Roll No-60620 15. Tulika Pao Roll No-21457 16.Priyanka Saikia Roll No-21064 17.Rani Deuri Roll No-62331 18.Sangita Sonowal Roll No-21269 19.Nabonita Saikia Roll No-20841 20.Momi Taye Roll No-20776 Respondent No-9 to N0-20 May Be Served Through The Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department Government of Assam, Dispur Guwahati-781006. .......................Respondents. Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. G. Alam, Advocate. Advocates for the respondents: Mr. P.P. Dutta, SC, APSC, Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate, Mr. P. Nayak, SC, P&RD. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Page No.# 6/21 Date of hearing:28.03.2025 Date of Judgment:23.04.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learnedstanding counsel APSC for the respondents No. 4, 5,6 and 7 as well as S. Borthakur, learned counselfor the respondents No.10, 11, 14 and 16 in WP(C)6311/2022 and for the respondents No. 9, 10, 11,14, 15, 16 and 20 in WP(C)6305/2022 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, P&RD. 2. Challenge made in these writ petitions is to the rejection of the Diploma Certificate on the ground that the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning of the petitioners is not a Diploma in Civil Engineering for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, as per the advertisement dated 24.06.2020. The petitioners also challenges the final select list dated 29.07.2022 issued by the PrincipalController of Examinations, Assam Public Service Commission, whereby, as many as 320 candidates have been selected for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, pursuant to theadvertisement dated 24.06.2020while not selecting the petitioners on the ground of not having Diploma in Civil Engineering, although, the petitioners have secured more marks than the private respondents. 3. Having considered that both the writ petitions involved similar issue of facts and law, same were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgement and order. 4. In WP(C)6311/2022, the petitioner is a Diploma in Civil Engineering and Page No.# 7/21 Planning obtained from the PCPS Girls Polytechnic after successfully completing the Diploma examination conducted by the State Council for Technical Education, Assam in the year 2015. In writ petition 6305/2022, the petitioner belongs to the Sonowal Kachari Tribe, a recognized Schedule Tribe (Plains) and is a Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning from the PCPS Girls Polytechnic, which has been obtained after successfully completing the Diploma examination conducted by the State Council for Technical Education, Assam, in the year 2016. 5. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is that the they have not been selected for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under Reserved For Women (in short RFW) and the Schedule Tribe (Plains) categories, despite securing more marks than the private respondents only on the ground that the Diploma Certificates of the petitionersare Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning instead of Civil Engineering dehors the order dated 23.05.2013 issued by the Director of Technical Education, Assam, specifying that the Diploma Course in Civil Engineering and Planning Branch is same as Civil Engineering branch. 6. The Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APSC’) issued an advertisement No.03/2020 dated 24.06.2020 inviting applications for filling up 344 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department (in short P&RD).Out of the total 144 posts under Open Category, 43 posts are earmarked as RFW and out of 40 posts for Scheduled Tribe (Plains), 12 posts reserved for RFW. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by submitting their applications and accordingly, they were issued with admit cards and appeared in Page No.# 8/21 the Screening Test. 7. It is the contention of the petitioners that theyhad fared well in the examination consisting of an Optical Mark Reading (OMR) based multiple-choice objective type screening Test of 100 marks each in General Studies and Civil Engineering. The petitioners were directed to attend the office of the APSC for verification of documents, in terms of the Notification dated 07.03.2022 as they have been informed to beeligible for appointment to the said post of Junior Engineer(Civil). Accordingly, they were directed to attend the office of the APSC for verification of the documents on 22.03.2022. However, in view of the order of this Court passed in IA(C) No. 821/2022 (Prabhat Kumar Kalita & 44 Others -Vs- The State of Assam & others), the document verification scheduled to be held from 22.03.2022 to 25.03.2022 was cancelled vide Notification dated 15.03.2022. However, the verification of the petitioner’sdocument was done on 25.04.2022. Thereafter, the APSC had declared the result of 320 candidates for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD, pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and recommended the candidates for the said post on the basis of merit vide Result dated 31.05.2022 issued by the Principal Controller of Examinations, APSC.However, the names of petitionershave not been figured in the said selection result. 8. The petitioner with some other aggrieved candidates having beenfound not recommended their names and as the result notification does not contend the aggregated marks of the candidates, approached this Court being WP(C)4425/2022and WP(C)4441/2022. This Court vide order dated 29.06.2022 directed the APSC to issue a corrigendum maintaining the result published on 31.05.2022 to provide the respective aggregate marks obtained by the Page No.# 9/21 candidates and the result may be acted upon by the authorities after publication of the corrigendum. In compliance of the above order, the APSC had declared the result indicating the aggregated marks of candidates selected for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by the impugned result Notification dated 29.07.2022. However, since the petitioners were not recommendedby the said result notification, they have sought for information/documents under the RTI Act, 2005. 9. The APSC has furnished the information as sought by the petitioners, whereby, the ground of rejection of the candidature of the petitioners is shown to be due to Diploma in Engineering (Civil and Planning) in place of Civil Engineering and the total marks secured by the petitionersare shown to be 124.50 and 120.25 marks respectively in the Screening Test for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD. 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the Order dated 23.05.2013 issued by the Director of Technical Education, Assam, the Diploma Course in Civil Engineering and Planning Branch in Girls’ Polytechnic, Guwahati,is same as Civil Engineering Branch as it prevails in other Polytechnics of the State. Therefore, the purported ground of rejection for selection of the petitioner as shown by the APSC that they are having ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning’ instead of ‘Civil Engineering’ is wholly arbitraryand illegal. 11. Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the cut- off marks for female under the Open Category is 117.75 and 98.75 for Scheduled Tribe (Plains) category, the petitioner in WP(C)6311/2022 being female and belongs to the Open Category and had secured 124.50 marks and Page No.# 10/21 the petitioner in WP(C) 6305/2022 had secured 120.25 marks being female under Scheduled Tribe (Plains) category, in the Screening Test, they ought to have been selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD Department. 12. Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the “Diploma in Civil Engineering & Planning” is same as “Diploma in Civil Engineering” as both the courses are same. During the admission for pursuing the “Diploma in Civil Engineering & Planning Course”, the petitioner and other students were told by its authorities and they had good reasons to believe that the ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning’ is the same course as that of the “Diploma in Civil Engineering” in other polytechnics of the State. The respondent authority has been providing the same course, i.e. Diploma in Civil Engineering & Planning, by changing its nomenclature to ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering’. Therefore, the ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering & Planning and ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering’ is one and the same course. Therefore, rejecting the petitioner, on the ground of not having the Diploma in Civil Engineering, despite having the Diploma in Civil Engineering & Planning, which is one and the same, is totally illegal. 13. He submits that the aggregate marks secured by the petitionersin RFW under Open Category and Scheduled Tribe (Plains) being 124.50 and 120.25 marks in the screening Test, are far higher than the marks secured by the respondent Nos.9 to 20. Since the petitioners have secured higher marks than the private respondent Nos.9 to 20, the petitioners areeligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under Open Categoryand Scheduled Tribe (Plains) for women in the P&RD Department. Therefore, the respondent Page No.# 11/21 authorities may be directed to select and appoint the petitioners to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)in the P&RD Department. 14. Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, APSC, on the other hand, submits that in pursuant of requisition of Govt. of Assam, in P&RD Department vide letter dated 03.06.2020, the APSC published Advertisement dated 24.06.2020inviting applications from intending candidates having Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering for filling up ofthe posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the P&RD Department. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement was in consonance with the provisions laid down in the"The Assam Panchayat and Rural Development Officers (Technical) Services Rules, 2015". While referring to the Advertisement, he submits that if on verification at any time or any stage before or after the Preliminary Examination/ Screening Examination or/and Main/Written Examination and Interview Test, it is found that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, their candidature for the post(s)/service(s) will be cancelled by the Commission." He submits that thepetitionersare the Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and planning, whereas, requirement for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under P&RD Department as per the Advertisement dated 24.06.2020 is Degree or Diploma in the Civil Engineering. He further submits that under the provision of Procedure 3(3)(C)(ii)(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019, the Commission has the right to reject the candidature of candidates at any point of time. Since the petitioners are the Diploma holders in Civil Engineering and Planning and not the Diploma in Civil Engineering, the Commission has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioners, as they do not have the educational qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering. Page No.# 12/21 15. Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, further submits that the APSC conducts the selection process either as per the qualification prescribed under the relevant service rule or as prescribed by the Govt. of Assam, from time to time. It is a settled law that the employer is the best judge to prescribe qualification to the post, as per their requirement. Scope of judicial review on such matter is very limited. In the present case, since the prescribed qualification, as per the Rules and the advertisement is Diploma in Civil Engineering, the APSC cannot deviate from the prescribed qualification in the advertisement and the Rules. Therefore, since the petitioners do not have the required qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering, the candidatures of the petitioners have been rightly rejected. 16. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counselfor the respondents No.10, 11, 14 and 16 in WP(C)6311/2022 and for the respondents No. 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 20 in WP(C)6305/2022 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, P&RD, while adopting the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, APSC, have submitted that the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the P&RD Department is Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering as per the provision of Procedure 3(3)(C)(ii)(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019 and the Assam P&RD Officers (Technical) Services Rules, 2015. Such educational qualification has been clearly provided at Clause-V of the Advertisement dated 24.06.2020 issued by the APSC, whereby, it is provided that a candidate must have passed in Civil Engineering “Diploma in Civil Engineering” obtained from any institute approved by the AICTE and recognized by the Government. Further, since the petitioners have admitted that they are having Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning, the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning cannot be considered to be the Page No.# 13/21 Diploma in Civil Engineering as required under the relevant rules regulating the appointment of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department as well as the advertisement dated 24.06.2020. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as the claim of the petitioners is that the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning must be considered as the Diploma in Civil Engineering, the claim which is contrary to the Rules and the advertisement. 17. Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the P&RD, submits that the advertisementrequired candidates to have diploma in “Civil Engineering” only. The subsequentclarification made by various authorities, including the Committee constituted bythe Government of Assam, wherein it is stated that diploma in “Civil Engineeringand Planning” and diploma in “Construction Technology” are core subjects ofCivil Engineering, could only be applied to future advertisements, for filling upfuture posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). It cannot be made applicable to thepresent Advertisement dated 24.06.2020. He submits that once theadvertisement for a post is made and the requisite qualification has beenspecified in the advertisement, a candidate in order to be considered forappointment has to comply with the requisite qualification provided therein. Inthis regard he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case ofM.C. Bindal vs. R.C. Singh and Ors, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 136. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents haveplaced reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofZahoor Ahmed Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404,to show that the prescription of qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of Page No.# 14/21 eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. 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. 19. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 20. The petitioners are Diploma holders in ‘Civil Engineering & Planning’. The educational qualification provided in the advertisement dated 24.06.2020forthe post of JuniorEngineers (Civil) in the P&RD Department is that the candidates must haveDegree or Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from any institute approved by the AICTE and recognized by the Government. 21. The petitioners have not been selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the P&RD Department by the APSC, on the ground that the petitioners do not have the education qualification of Diploma/Degree in Civil Engineering as per the provision of Procedure 3(3)(C)(ii)(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019 and the Advertisement dated 24.06.2020, although, they are having Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning. The Rules and the advertisement made a mention of Diploma in Civil Engineering as educational qualification for the purpose of selection and appointment and not specifically of Civil Engineering and Planning. The advertisementalso required that candidates to have Diploma in Civil Engineering. Page No.# 15/21 22. It is noticed that by way ofclarification made by various authorities, including the Committee constituted bythe Government of Assam, it is stated that Diploma in “Civil Engineeringand Planning” and Diploma in “Construction Technology” are core subjects ofCivil Engineeringfor filling upthe posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). It is true that once theadvertisement for a post is made and the requisite qualification has beenspecified in the advertisement, a candidate in order to be considered forappointment has to comply with the requisite qualification provided therein. However, in the present case, the issue would be as to whether the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning is equivalent/same with Diploma in Civil Engineering, to which it has been clarified by the various authorities, as noted herein above, albeit in respect of other department as well as settled by this court which shall be considered (infra). 23. It is taken note that the Directorof Technical Education, Assam, the AICTE Notification and Assam GovernmentOffice Memorandum, indicates that Diploma in “Civil Engineering and Planning” may beconsidered as equivalent to Diploma in “Civil Engineering”. In similar circumstances, after considering theviews of the Director of Technical Education, Assam and with the due approvalof the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Assam, the PWRD informed the APSC that Diploma in “Civil Engineering andPlanning” is equivalent to Diploma in “Civil Engineering”. 24. The Report dated 11.01.2024 submitted by theCommittee duly constituted by the Government of Assam which was constituted on 18.11.2023, clearly goes to show that thecandidates having Diploma in “Civil Engineering and Planning” and Diplomain “Construction Technology”, who had submitted their candidature for beingconsidered for the post of Junior Engineer(Civil) would also have to be considered for the saidposts, as the Diplomas they possess are equivalent to Page No.# 16/21 Diploma in “CivilEngineering.” Thus, in the present case also, in my view, the petitioners being Diploma in Civil Engineering and planningare having requisite educational qualification in terms of the Advertisement dated 24.06.2020 for the post of Junior Engineers (Civil) in the P&RD Department. 25. As the controversy regarding the issue whether thepetitioners could be considered for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) havingbeen decided by the State respondents, the APSC, which is only the selectingand recommending body, would also have to consider the cases of thepetitioners, for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), in pursuantto the Advertisement dated 24.06.2020. 26. This Court in Mofidul Islam Kandakar and Ors. vs. The State of Assam and Ors (WP(C) 2064/2023) vide judgement and order dated 26.02.2024, has held that as the controversy regarding the issue whether thepetitioners could be considered for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) havingbeen decided by the State respondents, the APSC, which is only the selectingand recommending body, would also have to consider the cases of thepetitioners, for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).Of course, the above case relates to Public Works Department. However, since the Director of Technical Education, Assam has clearly stated that the AICTE Notification and Assam GovernmentOffice Memorandum, diploma in “Civil Engineering and Planning” may beconsidered as equivalent to the diploma in “Civil Engineering” and the Department of Public Works Road Development had informed the APSC that diploma in “Civil Engineering andPlanning” was equivalent to diploma in “Civil Engineering”, same would also apply to the petitioners in the present case. Page No.# 17/21 27. Having considered above, I am also of the considered view that the Diploma in ‘Civil Engineering and Planning’ is equivalent to the ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering’ for which the candidature of the petitioners ought not have been rejected only on the ground that the petitioners have only Diploma in ‘Civil Engineering and Planning’ and not Diploma in Civil Engineering. More so, the petitioners have secured more marks than the private respondent Nos.9 to 20. This Court is conscious that no fault could be attributable to the recommendation of the private respondent Nos.9 to 20, as the recommendation of the APSC has been made on having found that the petitioners do not have the educational qualification, as required under the recruitment rules and advertisement. However, this Court has settled that the ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning would be equivalent to the ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering’, on the basis of the decision of the various authorities of the State. Since the candidature of the petitioners have been erroneously rejected on the ground of not having requisite educational qualification despite the petitioners having scored more marks than the private respondents, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent Assam Public Service Commission to recommend the name of the petitioners, thereafter, the respondent authorities/P&RD Department shall consider the case of the petitionersfor appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in P&RD Department pursuant to the Advertisement dated 24.06.2020. 28. In the case of Zahoor Ahmed Rather(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held which are reproduced herein under: “26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher Page No.# 18/21 qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. 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 decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre- suppose 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 of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench. 27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for 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 perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule 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 specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.” 29. The above case pertains to recruitment of post of Technician III wherein the qualification prescribed was matriculation with ITI in Electrical Trade. The appellants were not possessing ITI certification but were diploma holders in Electrical Engineering/Electronics and Communication. In the present case, the petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering and Planning and the requirement is Diploma in Civil Engineering which has been clarified by the various authorities to be equivalent/same. Therefore, the case is clearly distinguishable. 30. In WP(C) 5182/2022, (Smt. Kanchan Hazarika and anothervs. The State of Page No.# 19/21 Assam)this Court vide order dated 24.06.2024, has observed and held which are reproduced herein below:- “10. Moreover, it was submitted in so far as the Diploma in Civil Engineering was awarded by the Director of Technical Education, Assam jointly with the Secretary, Examination Committee of State Council for Technical Education, Assam, the learned standing counsel for the Higher Education (Technical) Department has no objection to make. 11. The State Govt. through its PWD had accepted the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning as an equivalent to the Degree in Engineering for recruitment of Engineers. Under such circumstances, the Govt. of Assam cannot be permitted to take a different stand in so far as Irrigation Department is concerned. 12. The State Govt, is expected to have a single stand for all its Works Department. Therefore, the Court is inclined to hold that as the appropriate Govt. in the State of Assam have accepted the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning issued by the State Council for Technical Education is equivalent to the Degree in Civil Engineering for the purpose of recruitment in Junior Engineer (Civil), as in the present case also as the recruitment is for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department, the respondents cannot be permitted to change their stand. 13. Therefore, the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning issued by the State Council for Technical Education will have to considered as an equivalent to the Degree in Civil Engineering for the purpose of recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department. 14. Therefore, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2017, issued by the Higher Education (Technical) Department, as well as in light of the ratio laid down in the case of Mofidul Islam (supra), the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners who have Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning and have submitted their candidature for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) pursuant to the advertisement no.6/2020 dated 19.08.2020 issued by the APSC, would have considered for the said post as the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning, which the petitioners have acquired is declared to be equivalent to the Degree in Civil Engineering by the Govt. of Assam through the Higher Education (Technical) Department and which is also clarified by letter dated 10.03.2022 issued by the Director of Technical Education, Assam to the Secretary, APSC which is referred above. Therefore, the petitioners are found to be holding the requisite qualification for applying for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department pursuant to the above referred advertisement dated 15. Resultantly, the APSC is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as they have already submitted their applications and had taken part in the recruitment process.” Page No.# 20/21 31. In view of what has been discussed herein above and in the light of ratio laid down in Mofidul Islam Kandakar and Smt. Kanchan Hazarika (Supra), as well as in terms of the Office Memorandum issued by the Higher Education (Technical) Department and the decision of the State authorities, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners who have Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning and have submitted their candidatures for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.06.2020 issued by the APSC, are eligible to be considered for the said post as the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning, which the petitioners have acquired is declared to be equivalent to the Degree in Civil Engineering by the Govt. of Assam through the Higher Education (Technical) Department and which is also clarified by letter dated 10.03.2022 issued by the Director of Technical Education, Assam. Thus, the petitioners are found to be holding the requisite educational qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the P&RD Department pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.06.2020. 32. In the result, the APSC is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under their respective categories and recommend the name of the petitioners as they have secured more marks than the respondent No.9 to 20 and thereafter the P&RD Department to consider and appoint the petitioners to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if there are no vacancies, the last two candidates under the respective categories in the merit list have to give way to the petitioners, as any appointments were allowed to be made conditional and subject to the outcome of WP(C) No.6311/2022 and to be provided in the appointment letter itself vide interim order dated 22.09.2022, by Page No.# 21/21 this Court. 33. Writ petitions are allowed and disposed of, accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant