( 2025:HHC:16346 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 2 of 2022 Date of decision: 27th May, 2025 Dilvaru Devi & others …Appellant Versus State of HP & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellants: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr Nimish Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge By way of present appeal, appellants/petitioners have assailed judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4529 of 2020, titled Dilvaru Devi & others vs. State of HP and others, whereby petition preferred by appellants has been dismissed. 2 CWP No. 4529 of 2020 was filed by the appellants- petitioners for quashing impugned opinion of Law Department circulated under signatures of DLR-cum-Deputy Secretary(Law) to the 2 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Note dated 19th September, 2020 (Annexure P-10 to petition), on the basis of which private respondents No.3 to 5 have been considered by respondents No.1 and 2 for promotion/placement to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under Rules 11(ii) and 11(iii) notified vide Notification dated 6th December, 2019, (Annexure P-8 to the petition) prescribing 10% and 15% quota to Junior Engineers (Civil) having qualification of B.E./B.Tech (Civil) or AMIE degree, with further prayer to restrain respondents No. 1 and 2 from making promotions or placement of private respondents No. 3 to 5 to the post of Assistant Engineer(Civil) under these Rules. 3 For convenience, parties to lis are being referred as per their status in Civil Writ Petition. 4 Petitioner No.1, after completing her B.Tech degree from Himachal Pradesh University in the year 2012, was engaged on contract basis on 5.10.2013 as Junior Engineer (Civil). Her services were regularized vide order dated 6.5.2017 (Annexures P-1 and P-2). 5 Petitioner No.2 completed his B.Tech (Civil) from J.P. University in the year 2014. He was engaged as Junior Engineer (Civil) on contract basis on 1.11.2016 and his services were regularized vide order dated 28.4.2020 (Annexures P-3 and P-4). 6 Both petitioners were having the degree of B.E./B.Tech at the time of their appointment. 3 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) 7 Respondent No.3 joined the services of Department as Civil Engineer on 13.11.2009 on regular basis and passed AMICE(I) in the year 2012 from the Institute of Civil Engineering (India) Ludhiana (Pb.). 8 Respondent No.4 joined the duty as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 29.5.2009 on contract basis. He completed his AMICE(I) in the year November, 2012 and was regularized in March, 2015. 9 Respondent No.5 had taken admission in AMICE(I) Degree after his appointment in the year 2012 and he completed his AMIEC(I) in the year 2015 and his services were regularized in 2017. 10 Relevant provisions of Rules 11(ii) and 11(iii) notified vide Notification dated 6.12.2019, read as under:- “(ii) Junior Engineer (Civil) who acquire BE/B.Tech (Civil) or AMIE degree during service as Junior Engineer (Civil) with three years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade after acquiring such qualification……...10% (iii) Junior Engineer (Civil) who possess BE/B.Tech (Civil) or AMIE degree at the time of appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) with three years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service required, if any, in the grade………..15%.” 11 Prior to R&P Rules 2019 notified vide Notification dated 6th December, 2019, the R&P Rules of 2010, notified vide Notification 4 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) dated 5th June, 2010, were in force, wherein provisions of Rules 11 (ii) and 11(iii) were as under:- (ii) Junior Engineers (Civil) who acquire BE (Civil) or its equivalent degree during service as Junior Engineer (Civil) with three years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in he grade after acquiriing such qualification…….10% (iii) Junior Engineer(Civil) who possess Degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent at the time of appointment as Junior Engineer(Civil) with three years’ regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade…...15%” 12 It has been canvassed on behalf of appellants that in unamended Rules, there was scope of equivalence of any degree equivalent to B.E./B.Tech or AMIE, but after framing the R&P Rules 2019, R&P Rules 2010 have been repealed. There is no scope for equivalency of any degree with B.E./B.Tech or AMIE degree for consideration of candidature of a person under existing Rules 11(ii) and 11(iii) for promotion. 13 It has been further submitted that in R&P Rules, 2010 there was provision for considering equivalence of qualification, however, it stands repealed vide amendment carried out in the R&P Rules and therefore, it is explicit intention of the employer that no equivalency with B.E./B.Tech or AMIE is permissible. 5 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) 14 It has been submitted that Rules existing on the day are to be made applicable and, therefore, for not having degree of B.E./B.Tech or AMIE as provided in the prevailing R&P Rules, private respondents are not entitled for consideration under Rules 11(ii) and 11(iii) of relevant R&P Rules. 15 It has been contended that AMICE degree obtained by private respondents is not a AMIE degree as provided under R&P Rules, 2019, and therefore, for absence of mention of degree of AMICE in the Rules, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by equating AMICE with AMIE particularly when Rules do not provide consideration of equivalent degree or equivalence of a degree with a degree prescribed under the Rules. 16 To substantiate the plea, learned counsel for appellants has placed reliance upon Unnikrishnan CV and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 256 (para 5 onwards); Prakash Chand Meena and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2015)8 SCC 484 (Paras 8 and 9); State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raj Kumar and others reported in (2023)3 SCC 773 (Paras 27 and 28). 17 Learned counsel for private respondents has contended that petitioners, who had joined the services in the Department after respondents, have no locus standi to file the petition at this stage against the private respondents. Further that amendment in the Rules 6 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) has been carried out for removing the doubts because provisions for equivalency was creating difficulty, as some of the employees were claiming equivalency of their degree to the AMIE despite the fact that they had not obtained the degree of AMIE or equivalent thereof. 18 It has been submitted that amendment has not been carried out to debar the persons like private respondents, but has been made for curative purpose so as to avoid any confusion. 19 It has been further submitted on behalf of private respondents that AMICE or AMIE are one and same degrees recognized by the Government of India as evident from the record as well as the opinion of Law Department and therefore, it would be incorrect to say that degree of AMICE obtained by private respondents is a degree different to AMIE prescribed under the Rules. 20 Learned counsel for private respondents has placed reliance upon judgments Puneet Sharma and others vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another reported in AIR 2021 SC 2221 (para 22):(2021)16 SCC 340; Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 5100/(2004)8 SCC 1 (paras 22 to 26). 21 In Unnikrishnan CV’s case, the issue involved was with respect to comparison of Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) with Diploma in Civil Engineering. These two Diplomas were altogether different and prayer was being made to the Court to 7 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) declare that Diploma in DED and Diploma in Civil Engineering were equivalent. The Court had reiterated that Courts would not venture to prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of the Course. Until and unless the Rule itself prescribes the equivalency of courses named differently to be treated alike, the Court would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies. 22 Similarly in judgment Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another reported in (2009)1 SCC 610, considered in Unnnikrishnan CV’s case, it was held by the Court that there was no material on record to show that the distant education course was also recognized as equivalent to the degree of MA (English) and it was reiterated that equivalence was a technical academic matter. 23 In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was observed that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to be determined. 24 In Prakash Chand Meena’s case also it was observed that in the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent qualification must be recognized as such, in the recruitment rules or 8 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) Government orders, existing on or before the initiation of recruitment process. 25 In Raj Kumar’s case, it was observed that with the enactment of laws and issuance of rules governing the services, Governments are equally bound by the mandate of the rule. There is no power or discretion outside the provision of the rules governing the services and the actions of the State are subject to judicial review. 26 In Puneet Sharma’s case, it was reiterated that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualification as a condition of eligibility and it is not a part, Role or intention of the judicial review to expand upon the ambit of prescribed qualification, and similarly equivalence of qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent, is a matter of State as recruiting authority to determine. 27 In Puneet Sharma’ case, it was further opined that though the amending Rules were brought into force prospectively, but being clarificatory they applied to the recruitment, in the given facts and circumstances, retrospectively despite their enforcement prospectively. 28 In present matter, learned Single Judge has not undertaken the exercise of equivalence of two degrees of different nature. Rather, the State/Department had considered the degree 9 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) obtained by the incumbents, who had applied for and acquired their degrees prior to 31.05.2013 from the Institute of Civil Engineering India, Ludhiana (Pb), for the purpose of recruitment and promotion in the Department with clarification that incumbents, who had already acquired the degree from the said Institute before 31.5.2013 as well as the incumbents who had enrolled before 31.5.2013, but acquired their degree(s) even thereafter, were also to be considered for the purpose of recruitment and promotion. It is also undisputed fact that Institute of Civil Engineering India Ludhiana (Pb) awards degree of AMICE i.e. Associate Member of Institution of Civil Engineers, which is duly recognized by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) in its 52nd emergent meeting held on 3.8.2017 as recorded by learned Single Judge referring the letter dated 14.1.2019. 29 It is no one’s case that Institute of Civil Engineering India Ludhiana (Pb) grants two different degrees i.e. AMIE and AMICE. The only degree, which is recognized by the Government and AICTE, awarded by Institute of Civil Engineering India Ludhiana (Pb.) is AMICE. 30 Learned Single Judge has not made equivalence of two degrees, but has only clarified that degree of AMIE awarded by the Institution of Engineers (India) at Kolkata as AMIE i.e. Associate Member of Institution of Engineers India is equivalent to B.E./B.Tech and as per Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), 10 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) Government of India, the AMIE is considered equivalent to the degree in Engineering and further that degree of AMICE has been considered equivalent to AMIE by the recruiting employer/State in consonance with the opinion of Law Department. 31 It has been further clarified by learned Single Judge that insertion of word ‘Civil’ in the degree of AMIE does not change the nature of qualification prescribed under R&P Rules as both i.e. AMIE and AMICE have been recognized by the Government of India as well as recruiting Department and Law Department of the State as one and the same qualification. 32 It has been observed by learned Single Judge that it was not the stand of recruiting Department/State or the Law Department that private respondents were not eligible for promotion rather, degree of AMICE-I has been considered as degree of AMIE for all intents and purposes. 33 Learned Single Judge has not entered into the exercise of equivalence. “Equivalency” is an exercise to be undertaken for comparing the subject as well as duration of the course with each other. This exercise has already been done by the Department and Law Department. Therefore, it is wrong to say that learned Single Judge has transgressed the jurisdiction by entering into exercise of equivalency. Learned Single Judge has only clarified that degree of AMIE and degree of AMICE have been considered similar by the 11 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) Department and Law Department correctly as addition of word “civil” does not make any difference, particularly when both degrees are in Civil Engineering. 34 Learned Single Judge has not substituted any independent view in place of view of recruiting Agency/State/Department, but has only undertaken judicial review of decision of recruiting Department/State and after taking into consideration material before him has not found any fault in decision of recruiting Department/State in considering the degree holders of AMICE at par with degree holders of AMIE with clarification that insertion of word ‘Civil’ does not change the nature of degree awarded to the private respondents. It is also apt to record that degree of AMIE prescribed under R&P Rules is also a degree equivalent to the degree of B.E./B.Tech in Civil Engineering. Therefore, addition of word ‘Civil’ in degree of AMIE does not make any difference and does not disqualify the private respondents from considering them eligible from recruitment/promotion. 35 Therefore, the act of recruiting Department/State and findings returned by learned Single Judge are not contrary to pronouncements of the Supreme Court, but are in consonance with settled law of land with clarification of peculiar facts of present case with respect to addition of word ‘Civil’ in the degree of AMIE awarded by the Institute of Civil Engineering India Ludhiana (Pb.) 12 ( 2025:HHC:16346 ) 36 In view of above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge warranting interference of this Court especially exercising peculiar jurisdiction of Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 27th May, 2025(ms) (Ranjan Sharma), Judge.