GAHC010045362018 2025:GAU-AS:14734 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P.(C) NO.1568 OF 2018 1. Sri Tinku Kro, S/o- Lorence Kro, R/o- Driver Colony, Diphu, P.S. & P.O.- Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin-782460. 2. Sri Gailyson Kronihang, S/o- Late Basa Kro, R/o- Rangpangni, P.S. & P.O.- Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782460. 3. Sri Harlongki Timung, S/o- Hemari Timung, R/o- Chief Engineer colony, Diphu P.S. & P.O.- Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782460. 4. Sri Jirsong Terang S/o- Sonasing Terang R/o- Chephongsajir, Near Flood Control Office, P.S.- & P.O.- Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782460. 5. Sri Mirlin Terangpi D/o- Late Khorsing Terang R/o- Rorulangso, Diphu P.S. & P.O.- Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782460. …….Petitioners -Versus- 1. Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Represented by the Principal Secretary, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782460 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnnel (A), Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782460 3. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner to the Govt. of Assam, Hills Area Development, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 4. Sri Harmon Kro, S/o- Sri Madhusing Kro, Vill- Rongmonjir, P.S. & P.O- Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782460. 5. Sri. Jirong Rongpi, S/o- Sri Mansing Rongpi, Vill- Rongchedon, near ITI, P.S. & P.O.- Diphu, Dist:- Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782460. ……. Respondents 6. The Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, represented by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001. 7. All India Council for Technical Education, represented by its Member Secretary Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110067. ……. Proforma respondents – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Sarania, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Chutia, Standing Counsel, KAAC for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. J. Payeng, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. B. D. Das, Senior Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel, AICTE. Date of Hearing : 23.10.2025. Date of Judgment : 31.10.2025. JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. M. Sarani, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel, for respondent No. 4, Mr. B. D. Das, learned senior counsel, for respondent No.5, and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, AICTE, for respondent No. 7. Page 4 of 36 2] By way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing, inter alia, the impugned appointment order dated 06.09.2017 of private respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the office of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Secretariat, Diphu, and for further direction to the respondent Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (hereinafter referred to as <KAAC=) to hold a fresh interview for the post of Assistant Engineer as per the advertisement dated 17.02.2017. 3] The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.02.2017 issued by the Joint Secretary, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Department of Personnel (A), KAAC Secretariat, Diphu, for filling up 1 (one) post of Assistant Engineer (AE) in the office of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Secretariat, Diphu, the petitioners submitted their applications along with other candidates. It is the specific case of the petitioners that despite the petitioners being eligible and call letters having been issued for the viva voce test, the respondent KAAC illegally appointed respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the said post of Assistant Engineer (AE). Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the aforesaid appointment of the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4] Mr. M. Sarani, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the respondent No. 4, having obtained a degree/diploma from The Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab) (hereinafter referred to as <ICEI, Ludhiana=), does not meet the requirement of eligibility as required under the advertisement in question for the said post inasmuch as ICEI, Ludhiana, is not a recognized institute. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85, emphasized strict adherence to advertised criteria, rejecting implied allowances for equivalence. He further submits that the MHRD’s 2007 Notification granted ICEI, Ludhiana, equivalence contingent on a review within one year; however, when there is no evidence of such a review, ICEI, Ludhiana’s recognition post 2008 automatically stands void. He further draws the attention of this court to the All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as <AICTE=) RTI reply dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) confirming non- approval of ICEI, Ludhiana’s equivalence. He accordingly submits that the certificate submitted by the respondent No.4 is invalid, and hence the consequent appointment is illegal. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab, reported in (2019) 16 SC 95. 4.1] He further submits that the AICTE policy enclosed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition prohibits technical degrees except MBA/MCA through distance mode. Hence, ICEI, Ludhiana’s distance learning format, renders respondent No. 4’s qualification per se invalid. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala, reported in (2024) 0 Supreme (SC) 638. He further submits that since the subject advertisement explicitly excludes equivalent qualification, the certificate obtained by respondent No. 4 from ICEI, even if for the sake of argument it is deemed equivalent, is inadmissible inasmuch as any appointment made in deviation from the advertised criteria is void. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Promod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Service, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153. He further submits that since the subject advertisement was for only one Assistant Engineer post, respondent No. 5’s appointment to an unadvertised post is void. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the following decision of the Apex Court: - (i) Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 386, (ii) State of Orissa v. Raj Kishore Nanda, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, (iii) Vijoy Kumar Pandey v. Arvind Kumar Rai, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 611. 4.2] He accordingly submits that the appointments being made beyond advertised posts are in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and hence, the subject selection is not transparent and therefore, is vitiated. 5] Per contra, Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, submits that the petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4, and 5 were much lower in the merit list prepared by the selection board, and the petitioner No. 2, having not participated in the viva voce test, was not selected. He further submits that there were 5 other successful candidates in the merit list dated 25.03.2017 above the petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 and yet they were not impleaded as respondents in the present writ petition. He accordingly submits that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for non-joinder of the necessary parties. He further submits that the validity of the select list in question has been extended by the respondent KAAC for the period of one year, and during the validity of the extended period, one post of Assistant Engineer having fallen vacant, respondent No. 5 was appointed against the other post in order of merit from the said list. He further submits that the respondent No. 4 ICEI, Ludhiana, recognition is in terms of the letter dated 15.06.2017 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, and Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012. He further submits that the Apex Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar & Ors., v. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2014 (16) SCC 187, has held that the results of the interview test on merit cannot be challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected in the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. 6] Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4, submits that the respondent No. 4 being placed in serial No. 1 of the subject select list and having obtained Associate membership in Civil Engineering (AIMCE) from ICEI, Ludhiana, which is equivalent to a B.E. degree, his appointment to the subject post is valid. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the following decisions: - (i) Institute of Mechanical Engineer (India) v. State of Punjab, reported in 2019 16 SCC 95, (Apex Court). (ii) Leena Moni Kumari and Ors., v. The State of Assam and Ors., in WP(C) No.5042/2017, (Gauhati High Court). (iii) Rohini Phangchopi and Anr., v. The State of Assam and Ors, in WP(C) No. 1968/2023, (Gauhati High Court). 6.1] He further submits that the respondent no. 7, i.e., AICTE, in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of their affidavit in opposition, has admitted that the institute from where the respondent No. 4 obtained his certificate is a recognized one. 7] Mr. B. D. Das, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5 submits that the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the subject post being made in terms of the vacancy arising during the validity period of the select list cannot be faulted with. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sivanandan C.T. and Ors., v. High Court of Kerala and Ors., reported in (2024) 3 SCC 799. 7.1] He further submits that the private respondents, having been appointed to the subject post after being selected, have been serving in their respective posts for more than 6 years, and hence, to unseat them after a lapse of several years would be contrary to public interest. 8] I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also carefully considered the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws submitted at the bar. 9] The issues falling for determination are (i) whether the Associate Membership course in Civil Engineering (AIMCE) obtained by the private respondent from the ICEI, Ludhiana, is equivalent to a B.E. (Civil) degree and satisfies the educational qualification prescribed under the advertisement dated 17.02.2017, and (ii) whether the appointment of the respondent No. 5 to an unadvertised post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) is legal and valid when only one post was initially advertised, but the appointment was made to a second vacancy that arose during the validity of the select list. 10] Before adverting into the merit of the issues, let me first look into the advertisement in question, which reads as under: - <KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (A) KAAC::SECRETARIAT DIPHU 782460 No. KAAC/G-Esstt/P(A)/2002-03/126/1791 Dated: 17.02.2017 ADVERTISEMENT Applications are invited from Indian Citizen as defined in Article 5 to 8 to the Constitution of India in Standard Form as prescribed in Assam Gazette of part-IX for filling up the following post in the office of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Secretariat, Diphu in the scale of pay and allowances as admissible under the Rules as indicated below: - 1) 1 (One) post of Assistant Engineer (AE) a. Scale of pay: - Pay Band (PB-4) + Grade Pay Rs. 12,000-40,200+Rs.5,400/- P.M plus other allowances as per rules. b. Age: Must not be less than 18 years and more than 38 years as on 01-01-2017 (Relaxable for SC/ST as per rules). c. Educational qualification: Must be BE (Civil) from a recognized institute. General Instruction 4) Duly filled up application form must be addressed to the Joint Secretary i/c Personnel Department along with Council Money Receipt of Rs. 10/- 5) The last date of submission of application form on…24-02-2017. 6) Self Attested copies of Certificates issued to competent authority supporting the following must be submitted along with the application form. i. Educational Qualification ii. Proof of Date of Birth iii. Caste Certificate iv. No application shall be accepted after 5 p.m. of …..24-02-2017. v. Incomplete and defective application will be summarily rejected. vi. Canvassing directly or indirectly will lead to disqualification. 11] Reading the aforesaid advertisement dated 17.02.2017, it appears that a candidate, in order to be qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, must possess a B.E. (Civil) degree from a recognized institute. Page 11 of 36 It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 participated in the selection process, and after the interview of the candidates, including the petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, the merit list for the said post of Assistant Engineer was finalized wherein the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 secured first and second positions, whereas the petitioner No. 1 was in 17th position, the petitioner No. 3 in 15th position, the petitioner No. 4 in 13th position, and the petitioner No. 5 in 8th position. It is worthwhile to note that the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 18.06.2021 in paragraph 4 have categorically stated that the petitioner No. 2 has not participated in the viva-voce test and that the office of the Personnel (A) Department KAAC has no copies of the particulars or the duly filled-up forms of the petitioner No. 2. Moreover, there is no material whatsoever in the petition as regards the petitioner No. 2 having filled up forms and/or participated in the viva-voce test in the selection process in question. That apart, it is apparent that there are five other successful candidates above the petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5; however, they were not impleaded as arrayed respondents in the present writ petition. 12] It further appears that the validity of the merit list prepared by the Selection Board on 25.03.2017 was extended by the respondent KAAC authorities for a period of one year by letter dated 16.09.2017. It further appears that though, by the impugned advertisement in question, applications were invited for one post of Assistant Engineer, however, during the extended validity period of the merit list, another post of Assistant Engineer fell vacant due to the promotion of the incumbent of the said post to the post of Superintendent Engineer, the two candidates in the said merit list at serial nos. 1 and 2, i.e., respondent Nos. 4 & 5, were accordingly appointed to the two vacant posts of Assistant Engineer. 13] Apt to reproduce the impugned appointment order dated 06.09.2017 of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, which reads as under: - <KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (A) KAAC::SECRETARIAT DIPHU 782460 No.KAAC/G-Esstt/P(A)/02-03/126/ Dtd._/_/2017. O R D E R The authority of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu is pleased to appoint the following candidates as Assistant Engineer (Civil) against the vacant sanctioned posts under Works Department, KAAC as shown below against their names in the scale of Pay Band (PB-4) @ Rs. 30000-110000+Grade Pay Rs.12700/- p.m. plus other allowances as per rule with effect from the date of their joining. Sl. No. Name of Candidates & their address Place of posting 1. Shri Harmon Kro, S/o Madhusing Kro Vill: - Rongmonjir, Diphu, P/o & P/S: - Diphu, Karbi Anglong. Against vacant post caused by promotion of Shri Ram Rongphar, AEE, KAAC, Diphu. 2. Shri Jirong Rongpi S/o Sri Mansing Rongpi Vill:- Rongchedon, near ITI, Diphu, P/O & P/S:- Diphu Against vacant post caused by promotion of Smt Surumai Timungpi, AEE, KAAC, Diphu. Page 13 of 36 The appointment is purely temporary and may be terminated at any time without notice or showing any reason thereof. Sd/- Prinicipal Secretary, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, D I P H U= 14] It is thus apparent from the above that although the original advertisement invited applications for one post of Assistant Engineer, during the currency of the select list another vacancy arose in the same cadre, and the appointing authority, while the select list was still valid, extended appointment to the next meritorious candidate, i.e., the respondent No. 5, against the subsequent vacancy. In the case of Prem Singh and Ors., V. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 319, the Apex Court clarified that though appointments beyond advertised vacancies are ordinarily impermissible, where additional vacancies arise during the currency of the selection process or during the validity of the select list, appointments from the same list are legally sustainable so long as the process remains transparent and merit-based. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision accordingly has held that such appointments, made against posts falling vacant after commencement of the selection process, do not warrant invalidation, provided they are made equitably and not arbitrarily. In the present case, although only one post was initially advertised, the record shows that another vacancy arose during the currency of the select list. The respondent No. 5, being next in order of merit, was appointed against that vacancy while the select list was still valid. There is no allegation of arbitrariness, favoritism, or deviation from merit. Therefore, the appointment cannot be said to contravene Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, issue no. (ii) is answered against the writ petitioners. Accordingly, the appointment of the respondent No. 5 cannot be held to be in contravention of law merely because the said post was not originally advertised, so long as the selection process and the select list remained valid and operative. 15] This now takes me back to the first issue as regards the degree awarded by the ICEI, Ludhiana. Admittedly, the educational qualification prescribed under the advertisement dated 17.02.2017 for appointment to the subject post is B.E. (Civil) degree from a recognized institute. Thus, a candidate has to be firstly holding a B.E. (Civil) degree, and secondly the institute from which the candidate has secured his or her civil degree is a recognized institute in order to be qualified for appointment to the subject post under the advertisement in question. It is undisputed that the respondent No. 4 does not possess the specifically prescribed particular qualification, i.e., a B.E. (Civil) degree; however, he has passed the degree/diploma in Section A & B of Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering (AMICE), from ICEI, Ludhiana. In this regard, apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs filed by the respondent KAAC, which read as under: - <7. That the deponent begs to state that in respect of the Degree awarded by the Institution of Civil Engineers Ludiana, Punjab, it is stated that the Respondent No.2 vide his letter No. KAAC/G- Esstt/P(A)/2002-03/126-248 dated 04-05-2017 wrote to the Under Secretary to the Ministry of Human Resource Development New Delhi, seeking confirmation regarding recognition of the degree awarded by the Institution of Civil Engineers Ludhiana, Punjab. In pursuance of the letter dated 04- 05-2017 the Under Secretary stated that MHRD had recognised some courses conducted by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana (Punjab) beyond 31-05- 2013. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 was enrolled in The Institution of Civil Engineers Ludiana, Punjab, on 14-07-2010 and he has passed Section A & B of Associate Membership Examination in Civil Engineering (AMICE) (1) equivalent to degree in Civil Engineering Examination held in summer 2016. 8. That the deponent begs to state that the Joint Secretary Government of India vide notification No.F.24-1/2007/TS.III dated 06-11-2007 notified that the Government of India has decided to give recognition to the section A & B of the Associate membership course, equivalent to degree and part I & II of Technician Engineers (T) equivalent to diploma in Civil Engineering and Architecture Engineering Courses conducted by the Institutions of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab, as per syllabus approved by AICTE w.e.f. the academic session 2007- 2008 for the purpose of employment to the posts and services under Central Government in the appropriate field. By office memorandum dated 06-12-2012, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Higher Education of Ministry of Human Resource Development clarified that all those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition up to 31,05-2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with the notification dated 06-11-2007. 9. That the deponent begs to states that the Joint Secretary Personnel (A) department vide his letter No. KAAC/G-Esstt/P(A)/2002-03/126/248 dated 04-05- 2017 wrote to the Under Secretary, the Government of India, Department of Higher Education of Ministry of Human Resource Development to confirm whether the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab, has been approved by the AICTE or not. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Higher Education of Ministry of Human Resource Development by letter dated 19-05-2017 confirmed the issuance of Notification dated 06-11- 2007 by which some of the courses conducted by the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab, were recognised by the MHRD for the purpose of employment in Central Government. The Assistant Director (P & AP) of All India Council for Technical Education vide his letter No. F.No.AD(P&AP)Gen. Corres/2017/320 dated 01-08-2017 clarified to the Director of Technical Education, Government of Assam that the matter of granting recognition to professional bodies such as ICI (Ludhiana, Punjab) comes under the perview of MHRD Government of India. 10. That the deponent begs to state that the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Higher Education of Ministry of Human Resource Development by his letter No. F.No.20-2/2017-TC dated 15-06-2017 informed the Director of Technical Education, Government of Assam, that some of the courses conducted by the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab, were recognised by the MHRD for the purpose of employment in Central Government. It is also clarified that MHRD had issued OM dated 06-12-2012 wherein it is clearly mentioned that all those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition up to 31--05- 2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with the notification dated 06-11-2007. The Respondent No. 4 was enrolled in the Institution of Civil Engineers, Ludiana, Punjab on 14-07-2010 in Section A & B of Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering (AMICE) (1) and he has completed the said Examination held in summer 2016.= 16] Reading the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, it is apparent that the Joint Secretary, Government of India vide notification dated 06-11-2007 communicated the decision to give recognition to the Section A & B of the Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering, equivalent to a degree and part I & II of Technician Engineers (T) equivalent to a diploma in Civil Engineering and Architecture Engineering Courses conducted by the ICEI, Ludhiana, as per the syllabus approved by AICTE w.e.f. the academic session 2007-2008 for the purpose of employment in the posts and services under the Central Government in the appropriate field. Further, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Higher Education of Ministry of Human Resource Development, by letter dated 15.06.2017, informed the Director of Technical Education, Government of Assam, that some of the courses conducted by the ICEI, Ludhiana, are recognized by the MHRD for the purpose of employment in the Central Government, and the same is equivalent to a degree. The said letter dated 15.06.2017 reads as under: - <F.No.20-2/2017-TC Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education (TC Section) To The Director, Deptt. of Technical Education, Govt. of Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19, Assam, Subject: Requesting documents regarding verification of educational qualification offered by the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab-regarding. Sir, I am directed to refer to your lefter No. TE(E)C-9/2017/2693 dated 24 May, 2017 which is received in this office on 07.06.2017 on the subject mentioned above. 2 In this regard, it is to inform you that the Deptt. of Higher Education, MHFID had recognized some courses conducted by Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab for the purpose of employment in Central Govt jobs. However, the MHRD had withdrawn the granting of further approval for recognition and equivalence of the courses conducted by Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab beyond 31 May, 2013. 3. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the MHRD had issued an Office Memorandum F. No 11- 15/2011-AR (TS.II) dated 06.12.2012 (copy enclosed) wherein it is clearly mentioned that >All those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in force pertaining to their course for equivalence in Central Government jobs. However, these concerned orders will cease to have effect from 01.06.2013 onwards?. Now the issue is sub-judice in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 4. Accordingly, the AICTE constituted a committee to review the professional bodies/institutions in the field of Technical Education and it has been decided to obtain information from professional bodies /institutions conducting technical education, within 30 days from the date of publication of the advertisement. Based on the information reviewed and recommendations of the review committee, decision will be taken by the council. Further details are available on the website of AICTE (www.aicte-india.org).= 17] It is thus evident that the government has treated the subject course awarded by ICEI, Ludhiana equivalent to a degree, and the said institution is also recognized for the purpose of employment. However, such recognition is only for those students who had been enrolled in such an institution prior to 31.05.2013. Thereafter, the MHRD, by an Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012, provided that all students who are enrolled with such institutions with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with the notification dated 06.11.2007. 18] Apt also to refer to the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012, which reads as under: - <F.No.11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110115 Date: 06.12.2012 OFFICE MEMORANDUM In modification of Order F.No 11-15/2011-AR (TSI) dated 10.07.2017 and to facilitate the institutions during transition period, following decision has been taken in the Ministry: (i) Above order dated 10.07.2012 regarding cases of recognition in perpetuity for equivalence in Central Government job, stands withdrawn. (ii) All those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/ order in force pertaining to their course for equivalence in Central Government jobs. However, these concerned orders will cease to have effect from 01.06.2013 onwards. (iii) After 31.05.2013, based on the review by the regulator i.e. AICTE, a decision on continuation of the certification of equivalence of degree/ diploma shall be taken by statutory regulator. Page 20 of 36 (iv) Statutory regulators should review the fresh proposals extension as per their statute and regulations. 2. In case, the institution desires to opt for realigning curriculum with NVEQF, it is advised to use this transition period upto 30.05.2013 for necessary action in this regard. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. R.K. Maheshwari Under Secretary to the Government of India= 19] Apt also to refer to the AICTE public notice, which reads as under: - <PUBLIC NOTICE (For Professional Bodies/Institutes Imparting Technical Education) Whereas MHRD, Govt. of India, through an order (vide OM ?>. 11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) dated 06.12.2012) withdrew the recognition granted to all certificates/qualifications awarded by professional bodies/institutions in the field of technical education. The MHRD further stipulated that from 01.06.2013 onwards the courses for equivalence will cease to have effect for employment in Central Government and the decision on the continuation of the certification of equivalence of degree/diploma would be taken by the statutory regulator (AICTE) after review. Accordingly, the Council in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held on August 03, 2017 decided to recognize equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education & Employment to Technical Courses conducted by various Professional Bodies/Institutions which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May 2013. Thus all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013, stand recognized. Page 21 of 36 Advt. No. P&AP/10(04)/2017 Member Secretary= 20] Apt also to refer to the AICTE Circular dated 23.11.2020, which reads as under: - <F.No. 13-56/PC/ODL-Mode/AICTE/2020 Dated: 23.11.2020 CIRCULAR Subject: Recognition of certification awarded by Professional bodies/Institutions. AICTE is receiving several requests related to the validity of certificates issued by the professional bodies institutions. Despite the public notice issued on 31/10/2017, the candidates/employers are sending letters to verify/demanding the recognition/validity of such certificates for academic or employment purposes. In view of the above, it is to inform you that, AICTE in its 52nd emergent council meeting held on 03.08.2017 has recognized the courses conducted by the professional bodies institutions in accordance with MIRD OM No. 11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) dated 06.12.2012 for equivalence for all purposes including higher education & employment which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013. This was informed to all professional societies and they were expected to stop registration w.e.f. 01.06.2013. However, some of them did go to court and final Judgment is awaited in this regard. Thus all those students who were enrolled with these institutions as per the above MHRD OM with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013. stand recognized and a public notice was issued in 31.10.2017 accordingly. However. AICTE recognition is not course specific and this is only the endorsement of the decision of MHRD in this regard. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13.08.2019 in the case MA No. 2367 of 2018 in Cisil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017, Institution of Mechanical Engineers Vs. State of Punjab & Ors has endorsed the decision of MHRD and AICTE Public Notice issued in 2017. Page 22 of 36 AICTE Public Notice dated 31.10.2017 may be accessed from web portal (https://www.aiete- india.org/content/public-notice-professional- bodiesinstitutes-imparting technical-education) and appropriate decision may be taken for the recognition of the certification awarded by these professional bodies for academic & employment purposes. (Prof. Dileep N. Malkhede) Adviser-I Policy & Academic Planning Bureau= 21] Reading the above, it is abundantly clear that the Joint Secretary, Government of India, vide notification dated 06.11.2007, has given recognition to the Section A & B of the Associate Membership course conducted by the ICEI, Ludhiana, as per the syllabus approved by AICTE w.e.f. academic session 2007-2008 equivalent to a degree for the purpose of employment to the post and services under the Central Government in the appropriate field. It further appears that by Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012, the Department of MHRD also clarified that those students who were enrolled with the institution up to 31.05.2013 stands recognized and eligible for consideration in accordance with the notification dated 06.11.2007, and accordingly a public notice was also issued on 31.10.2017. It further appears that in response to a letter dated 04.05.2017 by the Joint Secretary Personnel (A) Department, the Under Secretary Government of India, MHRD, by letter dated 19.05.2017, confirmed the issuance of notification dated 06.11.2007, by which some of the courses conducted by the ICEI, Ludhiana, were recognized by the MHRD for the purpose of employment in the Central Government. The letter dated 19.05.2017 reads as under: - <Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education (T C Section) To Joint Secretary, Personnel <A= Department, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, KAAC Secretariat, DIPHU-782460 Subject: Eligibility of Government jobs of Degree from AMICE (I), Sec-A&B, Ludhiana (Punjab) and approvel of AICTE, MHRD- regarding. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated 4.05.2017 on the subject mentioned above. 2. In this regard, it is to inform you that the Department of Higher Education, MHRD had issued Notifications/Letters/O.Ms in the past regarding recognition and equivalence of qualifications awarded by Institution of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana (Punjab) which are available on the website of the Ministry (www.mhrd.gov.in) and self-explanatory. The MHRD had recognized some course conducted by Institution of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana (Punjab) for the purpose of employment in Central Government jobs. A notification dt.6.11.20017 in this regard is enclosed herewith. However, the MHRD had withdrawn the granting of further approval of recognition and equivalence of courses awarded by Institution of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana (Punjab) beyond 31.05.2013 as per the U.M. dated 06.12.2012 issued by MHRD (copy enclosed). Page 24 of 36 3. Now, the issued is sub-judice in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Yours faithfully Under Secretary to the Govt. of India= 22] It further appears that the respondent AICTE, by letter dated 01.08.2017, further clarified to the Director of Technical Education, Government of Assam, that MHRD is competent to grant recognition to professional bodies such as ICEI, Ludhiana. The letter dated 01.08.2017 reads as under: - <F. No. AD (P&AP) Gen Corres/2017/320 Dated 01.08.2017 To The Director of Technical Education. Govt. of Assam, Kahilipara. Guwahati-19, Assam Sub: Clarification regarding qualification offered by the Institute of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab. Sir, Please refer to your letter No. TECC- 9/2017/3765 dated 15.07.2017 on the subject mentioned above. It is informed that the matter of granting recognition to professional bodies such as ICI (Ludhiana), Punjab comes under the purview of MHRD Govt. of India. You may, therefore seek necessary information from the MHRD, Govt. of India Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. Yours faithfully, (Nawal Kishore Arora) Asstt. Director (P&AP)= 23] At this juncture let me also refer to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 7 AICTE on 31.08.2022, which reads as under: - <4. That before giving parawise reply the answering the deponent beg to state that the Ministry of Human Resource Development, (MHRD) Govt. of India, through an Office Memorandum/Order issued vide F.No.11- 15/2011-AR (TS.II) being modified dated 06/12/2012 has withdrawn recognition in perpetuity for equivalence in Central Govt. job granted vide order dated 10.07.2012 beyond 31.05.2013. The MHRD took a decision that all those students who are enrolled with the institutions/professional bodies. with permanent recognition upto 31/05/2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD Office Memorandum/Order in force pertaining to their course for equivalence in Central Government jobs. The details of the institutions/ professional bodies including institutions of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana (Punjab) having permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 are also available in the Ministry's aforesaid Office Memorandum. 5. That the deponent state that pursuant to the office Memorandum/Order being F. No.11-15/2011 -AR (TS. II) dated 06/12/2012 passed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. Of India, the All India Council for Technical Education issued a public notice being Advt. No.P& AP/10(04)2017 wherein it has been declared that the Council in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held in August 03,2017 decided to recognize equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education and employment to Technical Courses conducted by various professional Bodies/Institutions which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May 2013, stands recognized. 6. That the deponent beg to state that vide Circular dated 23.11.2020 issued by the Advisor, Policy and Academic Planning Bureau of AICTE, It has been informed that Institute of Civil Engineers (India) is a professional body conducting Technical courses and awarding Technician Engineers membership/ Associate Membership (AMICE) to the candidates who qualify the examinations conducted by it. It is also informed that the AICTE Council in its 52 emergent meeting held on 03.08.2017 has recognized the courses conducted by the professional bodies/institutions such as Institution of civil Engineers (India) in accordance with MHRD OM no. 11-15/2011-AR(TS II) dated 06.12.2012 for equivalence for all purposes including higher education and employment which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 stand recognized. Thus, all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 stand recognized and a public notice was issued on 31.10.2017 accordingly in this regard. However, AICTE recognition is not course specific and this is only the endorsement of the decision of MHRD.= 24] It is thus manifestly established that the Section A & B of the Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering (AMICE) (I) awarded by ICEI, Ludhiana, is recognized by the MHRD, and the same is equivalent to a degree provided such students had enrolled with ICEI, Ludhiana, in the course of Associate Membership in Civil Engineering prior to 31.05.2013. Thus, clearly an exception is made in favour of students who have enrolled in the said course in such institutions as ICEI, Ludhiana, up to 31.05.2013 for extending the benefits in terms of the notification dated 06.12.2012 and the public notice as referred to hereinabove. However, after 01.06.2013, such degrees granted by such institutions in the subject course is no longer made equivalent to a degree for the purpose of employment. In short, in the case of students who had enrolled in such an institution up to 31.05.2013, a certificate of passing such a course post 01.06.2013 shall be entitled for the benefit of the earlier equivalence of degree granted. 25] However, I cannot be unmindful of the prescribed essential qualification under the advertisement in question for the subject post, i.e., <B.E. (Civil)= from a recognized institute. This is undoubtedly a specific qualification requirement, not an open-ended one. The writ petitioners are correct in their contention that if the equivalence of the degree prescribed is not specified in the advertisement in question, the same cannot be implied. It is true that the eligibility must ordinarily be judged strictly in terms of what is prescribed in the advertisement; however, upon perusal of the advertisement in question, the same does not explicitly bar the acceptance of an equivalent qualification. Hence, if an advertisement specifically prescribes a particular qualification, then unless explicitly barred, <equivalent qualification= can be accepted. However, before accepting the equivalent qualification as a mandatory eligibility qualification for the purpose of applying to a post advertised, the court must be satisfied that either the advertisement and/or relevant service rules expressly provide for equivalence or the government or the statutory body empowered to prescribe qualification has formally recognized or notified equivalence between the degree mentioned in the advertisement and another qualification. 26] In the case of P.M. Latha and Anr., v. State of Kerala and Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 541, the Apex Court categorically held that when a specific qualification is prescribed under a recruitment notification, it is not open either to the candidate or the court to substitute or treat another qualification as equivalent merely because it is higher or similar. The Apex Court was further pleased to observe in the aforesaid case that <equity and law are twin brothers, and law should be applied and interpreted equitably, but equity cannot override written or settled law= and accordingly held that the B.Ed degree could not be treated as equivalent to the Teachers Training Certificate since the advertisement specifically required the latter. Similarly, in Jyoti K.K. and Ors., v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596, the Apex Court held that equivalence for higher qualification can be recognized only when the relevant rules or the competent authority expressly so declare. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 reads as under: - <6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows: ‘10. (a)(ii) 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.? (emphasis supplied) 7. 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 qualifications 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. 8. 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. 9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma-holders should have applied to post of Sub- Engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree-holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same Faculty. it becomes clear that the Rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory Rules have been published and those Rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware of the Rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of the appellants would amount to fraud on the public.= 27] Reading the aforesaid judgment, it appears that in the aforesaid decision, Rule 10 (a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956, permitted acceptance of <such higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post,= and the Apex Court accordingly held that equivalence must flow from such or official recognition. 28] Applying the above ratio it is clear that where an advertisement prescribes B.E. (Civil), the qualification of Associate Membership in Civil Engineering can be treated as equivalent only if it has been formally recognized by the competent authority. 29] In the present case the concerned ministry, i.e., MHRD, and the statutory body, i.e., AICTE, have issued a formal communication recognizing ICEI, Ludhiana, and thereby accepting the certificate of passing issued by such institute in Section A & B of Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering (AMICE) (I) as equivalent to a B.E. (Civil) degree for employment purposes in the Central Government, which, despite being withdrawn, is made applicable to those candidates who were enrolled in the concerned institutions up to the cutoff date. 30] Therefore, if the respondent No. 4 was enrolled in ICEI, Ludhiana pre 31.05.2013, for the subject course, upon his successful completion of the same, the certificate issued by such institution can be treated equivalent to the degree prescribed under the subject advertisement and in that event he cannot be said to be not qualified for non possessing the said prescribed qualification. 31] At this juncture let me now refer to the relevant averments in this regard made by the respondent No. 4 in his affidavit-in-opposition filed on 04.02.2022, which reads as under: - <11. That with regard to paragraph 17, the deponent states that the Officer Memorandum dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, Govt of India clearly notified that all those students who are enrolled with the institution with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in force pertaining to course for equivalent in central Govt. jobs. The deponent who enrolled in the institution of Civil Engineer (India), Ludhiana with permanent recognition (membership) number being 62884 for the course of Technical Membership and Associate Membership Examination A and B is therefore protected by the said notification. The petitioners also relaying the same notification in their writ petition in para-19 of the writ petition. Further the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in its 52nd Emergent meeting held on 03.08.2017 recognized the Degree/Diploma as equivalent for all purpose including Higher Education and employment to Technical course conducted by various professional Bodies/Institution which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May 2013. The AICTE accordingly widely notified that thus all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 stand recognized. 12. That with regard to para-18, the deponent begs to state that the course offered by the institution of Civil Engineers (India) and other Departments of the said Institution Ludhiana, Punjab is not treated as distance course as it has a unique syllabus and Hybrid method of awarding the Degree in whole over India. The MHRD and AICTE have approval and recognition to the Institution and the degree provided by the Institution as valid and recognized for all purpose.= 32] Reading the aforesaid averments, it appears that the respondent No. 4 was enrolled in the ICEI, Ludhiana, on 14.07.2010 in section A & B of the Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering (AIMCE) (I), i.e., prior to the said cutoff date, and he has completed the said examination held in summer 2016, and as such, he is covered by the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012. Hence, it is established that the respondent No. 4 is qualified for the subject post for appointment. 33] Apt at this juncture to refer to the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in the case of Leena Moni Kumari and Ors., (supra), wherein this court has held that all such professional degrees are to be considered to be equivalent to a B.E. (Civil) degree and are recognized for all purposes, including higher education and government jobs. 34] As regards the argument of Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioners, that AICTE in its reply dated 04.10.2017 as regards the information sought under the RTI Act 2005 as to whether ICEI, Ludhiana is recognized by AICTE after 31.05.2013, clarified that ICEI, Ludhiana is not approved by AICTE, is not applicable in the context of the present case inasmuch as the petitioners, having enrolled in ICEI, Ludhiana, in the year 2010, falls within the cut-off date, i.e., 31.05.2013, and therefore the certificate in support of the eligibility qualification submitted by the respondent No. 4 can be treated equivalent under the degree prescribed in the subject advertisement. 35] Apt to refer to the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in Rohini Phangchopi and Anr., (supra) wherein in paragraph 13, the coordinate bench of this court has clearly clarified the aforesaid position, which reads as under: <13) A circular dated 23.11.2020 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Said circular reiterates the decision of the All India Council for Technical Education taken in its 52nd Emergent Council meeting held on 03.08.2017 that courses conducted by professional body/institutions in accordance with MHRD No.11-15/2011-AR dated 06.12.2012 for all purposes including higher education and employment which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013. Accordingly, as per the above MHRD Office Memorandum, students who were enrolled in these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 and had obtained their Degrees or Diplomas such Degrees or Diplomas are recognized and to their effect the public notice dated 31.10.2017 was issued.= 36] In this regard apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra), wherein the Apex Court clarified that as an exception the certificates awarded to candidates enrolled up to 31.05.2013 in the institution in question shall be considered equivalent to a mechanical engineer for the purpose of employment under the Central Government. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision read as under:- <49. However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE up to 31-5- 2013 as is evident from Notification dated 6-12-2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August 2017. These communications also indicate that all those students who were enrolled up to 31-5-2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we have laid down that the certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31-5-2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 6-12-2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enrol themselves so that they could appear at the examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in place by the Central Government itself and the course content as well as the curriculum were reviewed by AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that after 1-6-2013 the orders concerned granting equivalence would cease to have any effect. 50. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled up to 31-5-2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after 1-6-2013. The certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled up to 31-5-2013 shall be considered equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in the Central Government.= 37] Be it reiterated that the respondent No. 7 AICTE in their affidavit in opposition referred to above has admitted the institute wherefrom the respondent No. 4 obtained the certificate in question as recognized and valid. 38] In the present case, the respondent No. 4 possesses a <Section A & B of Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering (AMICE) (I)= awarded by the ICEI, Ludhiana. The record further discloses that the competent ministry of the Government of India has by a formal communication accorded recognition to the said qualification, treating it as equivalent to a B.E. (Civil) degree for the purpose of employment under the Central Government. There are materials placed on record indicating that such recognition is operating in respect of those students who have enrolled themselves in ICEI, Ludhiana, for Section A & B of Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering (AMICE) and their certificate of passing thereof is equivalent to a degree for the purpose of employment in question. Hence, the qualification possessed by the respondent No. 4 cannot be held to be deficient or ineligible vis-a-vis the qualification prescribed under the advertisement. Once the competent ministry has conferred equivalence, it is not open to this court to disregard the same or to substitute its own assessment of academic parity. As such, issue no. (i) is also decided against the writ petitioners. 39] As such, I am of the unhesitant view that the qualification of Section A & B of Associate Membership Course in Civil Engineering obtained by respondent No. 4 stands duly recognized as equivalent to a B.E. (Civil) degree for the purpose of the subject selection process, and therefore, respondent No. 4 satisfies the educational qualification prescribed under the advertisement in question for the subject post. Page 36 of 36 40] In view of the foregoing, no case is made out by the writ petitioners warranting interference from this court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant