1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6325 of 2016 Reserved for Order on 23.07.2025 Order Pronounced on 17.10.2025 Order uploaded on 17.10.2025 Smt. Bhavani Sahu W/o Shri Manishankar Sahu, Aged About 32 Years Posted As Lecturer Mechenical Government Polytechnic College, Seoni, District Seoni Madhya Pradesh R/o Government Polytechnic College Campus, Seoni, District Seoni Madhya Pradesh, Permanent Residence- Devendandan Nagar, Phase- I, Near Balaji Nursing Home Lane, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Technical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - All India Council For Technical Education, Through Its Chairman, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 1100067, District : New Delhi, Delhi. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Res. No. 1/State : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatiya, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Res. No. 3 : Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Order 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/Directions, order/orders and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Assistance Workshop Superintendence treating the Bachelor’s Degree in Industrial & Production Engineering as relevant or equivalent to the Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and All India Council for Technical Education may kindly be directed to constitute the committee of experts in Industrial & Production Engineering to ascertain as to whether the Bachelor’s degree in Industrial & Production Engineering is equivalent to the degree of Mechanical, and the All India Council for Technical Education may further be directed to place on record the report of that expert committee. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/direction, order/orders and the decision of the P.S.C. whereby the petitioners have been declared disqualified may kindly be set-aside and P.S.C. may further be directed to conduct the fresh interview for the petitioner and they may further be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistance Workshop Superintendent. 3 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts, which emerges from the pleading in this case are that the petitioner, who is holding requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Workshop Superintendent, has submitted an application form for appointment on the post of Assistant Workshop Superintendent (in short “AWS”) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.12.2015 published by the respondent No. 2 - PSC. The petitioner is holding the degree of Bachelor of Engineering in “Industrial & Production Engineering” obtained from Guru Ghasidas, Central University, Bilaspur in first division (Annexure P/2). According to the petitioner, the said degree is equivalent to the degree of mechanical engineering. According to the “Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre Polytechnic (Gazette) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (for short “Rules of 2014”), the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of AWS is Bachelor degree in Mechanical Engineering / Technology or equivalent from any recognized University Institute, and / if the candidate has a Postgraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering / Technology from a recognized University/ Institution, then First Class or equivalent qualification at the graduate or postgraduate level is required. The same qualification was also mentioned in advertisement dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-1). Further case of the petitioner is that she appeared in the written examination and was declared passed and was also called for interview. However, she was not permitted to appear in the interview without any specific order in writing and orally denied stating that her bachelor degree in 4 “Industrial & Production Engineering” is not equivalent degree to Mechanical Engineering, which is the minimum qualification as prescribed in the advertisement and in the Rules of 2014. Therefore, this writ petition was filed with the relief as sought for as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 3. Return on behalf of the respondents have been filed. 4. Respondent No. 1 / State Government in its return basically stated that they are following the Rules, Regulations & instructions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short ”AICTE, 1987) and the appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, 2014 and the advertisement. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 4, which is reproduced below: 4. It is further respectfully submitted by the answering respondent that, in the State of Chhattisgarh, in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Governor of the State has made rules for the purpose of recruitment and conditions of service of teaching cadre in Polytechnics. The rules made is titled as “Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre Polytechnic (Gazette)Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (for brevity herein the Rules of 2014). Rules of 2014 prescribe the requisite educational qualification for the purpose of recruitment on the post of Assistant 5 Workshop Superintendent. The State of Chhattisgarh has incorporated the qualification as it is prescribed by the AICTE in the regulation of 2010.” 5. Respondent No. 2 / PSC has also filed its return stating inter alia that degree of the petitioner is not equivalent to the “Mechanical Engineering”, which has been considered by the expert and opinion in this regard was also given, therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the interview. 6. Respondent No. 3- All India Council for Technical Education (henceforth, 'AICTE') has also filed its return and additional affidavit stating inter alia that AICTE had published the Gazette Notification with regard to “Major/Core Branch of Engineering/Technology and their relevant / appropriate course leading to degree in Engineering / Technology for recruitment to teaching positions” dated 28th April, 2017 which comprises all the nomenclatures which AICTE had approved for their institutions to run. According to this notification and AICTE Approval Process Handbook, the Graduate Degree in Industrial and Production Engineering comes under the Major Discipline of Mechanical Engineering with Corresponding Course of Engineering Production Engineering. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that AICTE being the supreme regulating agency in respect to technical education in India, their Rules, Regulations & Hand Books published from time to time are binding upon the State Government. The appointment 6 should be made in accordance with minimum qualification as prescribed in these Rules, Regulations & Hand Book from time to time. He submits that post of ASW is equivalent to the post of Lecturer, to which, Hand Book has been published and according to which, Mechanical Engineering and allied courses are mentioned, in which, “Industrial & Production Engineering” would fall as allied course of Mechanical Engineering. Even otherwise, he submits that minimum qualification for the post of 'AWS' is equivalent to the Mechanical Engineering or equivalent degree obtained from a recognized University and in the case in hand, the petitioner is holding the Bachelor's degree in “Industrial & Production Engineering” and, therefore, denying the petitioner from appearing in the interview cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Apart from this, he submits that AICTE has also admitted that degree obtained by the petitioner is allied course of Mechanical Engineering and respondent No. 2 – PSC has not filed any document to suggest that on what basis, they came to the conclusion that degree obtained by the petitioner is not equivalent to the degree of Mechanical Engineering. He submits that equivalence has already been drawn by the 'State Government' and 'All India Council for Technical Education' , therefore, the Public Service Commission, which is an examining Authority, is bound by the decision of equivalency of two degrees taken by the AICTE and the State Government and they have no authority to examine equivalence of both the degrees and by doing this, they have exceeded their jurisdiction. 8. On the contrary, Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned Panel Lawyer for the 7 State/respondent No. 1 while referring to its reply would submit that appointment on the post of Assistant Workshop Superintendent would be made in accordance with Rule, 2014 and Rules & Regulations prescribed by the AICTE. He submits that Rule, 2014 prescribed that degree in Mechanical Engineering or its equivalent degree is minimum qualification for appointment on the post of AWS. However, in the return filed by the State, the State Government has not categorically denied in explicit terms that degree of the petitioner i.e. “Industrial & Production Engineering” is not equivalent to the degree of Mechanical Engineering. 9. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 / PSC would submit that the petitioner is holding the bachelor degree of “Industrial & Production Engineering”, which is not the equivalent degree to the “Mechanical Engineering” and opinion was also sought from the expert in this regard, therefore, denial of the petitioner to appear in the interview for appointment on the post of AWS is absolutely justified, which cannot be interfered with in the instant writ petition. He submits that the Courts are not expert to draw the equivalence between the degrees and it is domain of expert body to look into this. 10. Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/AICTE would submit that degree possessed by the petitioner is allied course of “Mechanical Engineering’ and from time to time Notification has also been issued to clarify this position, therefore, State Government ought to have taken into consideration the 8 requirement needed for appointment on the post of AWS, however, he is not in a position to say that degree obtained by the petitioner is not equivalent to the mechanical Engineering. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The petitioner in the case in hand is holding a decree of bachelor of engineering in the branch of Industrial and production engineering from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. The petitioner has applied for appointment on the post of AWS in lieu of the advertisement dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-1). According to which the aspiring candidate must posses a first class degree in mechanical engineering / technology or equivalent from any recognized university. Therefore, the issue involves in this case that degree of B.E. (Industrial and Production Engineering) would have the equivalence of B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) as envisage in the advertisement. The law with regard to draw equivalence in the educational qualification is well settled. The equivalence of a degree is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of power of judicial review. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated the settled legal position. The Court should avoid drawing equivalence of degree. This exercise has to be done by the experts. Keeping in mind this legal principles of law, the facts of this case has to be examined. 13. The advertisement (Annexure P-1) envisages that a equivalent of degree of B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) from a recognized university would also be sufficient for the candidate to be eligible 9 for applying and appointment on the post of AWS. Mr. Varun Sharma submitted that respondent No. 3 (AICTE) has issued the equivalent list (Annexure P-6) prior to advertisement which demonstrate that the degree held by petitioner is equivalent to B.E. (Mechanical Engineering). It has also submitted that respondent No.2 (PSC) has no authority to decide the equivalence of degree. Whereas according to Dr. Sudeep Agrawal whether the degree of B.E. (Industrial and Production Engineering) held by the petitioner is equivalent to B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) has already been examined by experts called by it and have given an opinion that both the degree are not one and the same and therefore they are not one and the same and are not equivalent degree. 14. In compliance of order dated 24.03.2024, respondent No. 3 (AICTE) has filed an affidavit. According to which graduate degree in Industrial and Production Engineering comes under the major discipline of Mechanical Engineering with corresponding course of engineering production vide its gazette notification dated 06.10.2021 it has been clarified that organization should take into consideration the list of major discipline of engineering and technology and their relevant / appropriate branches with nomenclature and PG degree while deciding the case branch and allied branches. The paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 of the affidavit is quoted for ready reference:- 3. It is submitted as per authority of legal cell of answering respondent it is respectfully submitted that in this regard, AICTE had published the Gazette 10 Notification regarding "Major/Core Branch of Engineering/Technology and their relevant/appropriate. Courses leading degree in Engineering/Technology for recruitment to teaching positions" dated 28th April, 2017 which comprises all the nomenclatures which AICTE had approved for their institutions to run. According to this notification and the AICTE Approval Process Handbook. The Graduate Degree in Industrial and Production Engineering comes under the Major Discipline of Mechanical Engineering with Corresponding Courses of Engineering Production Engineering. 4. Subsequently, in order to bring more clarity and flexibility in the matter, AICTE has also issued Gazette Addendum Notification dated 06th October, 2021 wherein, it is clarified that "keeping in view of the contents of the earlier Gazette Notification, the difficulty is being faced by various job seekers and Government Organizations in taking decision for recruitment of candidates for various posts having qualifications in Engineering. and Technology at Degree and PG level and also the provisions made in the new National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 about multidisciplinary and flexibility, it is hereby clarified that the aforesaid organizations should take into consideration the list of major discipline of Engineering and Technology and their relevant/appropriate branches with nomenclatures of UG and PG degrees as notified while deciding the Core Branch and Allied Branches. The cases of candidates pertaining to the branches other than those pointed out in the above referred Gazette Notification, may be dealt with by recruiting organizations by convening a meeting of the Committee of Experts to decide the suitability based on the merit of each case(s) and the job requirements of the concerned organization. 11 Copy of the relevant pages of notification dated 28.04.20217 and dated 6.10.2021 are filed herewith as Annexure R/1. 15. AICTE is the supreme regulatory body to regulate and maintain the standard of technical education in India. The respondent / State in its return has categorically accepted that in the Rules of 2014 the qualification for appointment on the post of ASW has been incorporated as it is prescribed in All India council for Technical Education (Service Condition and Qualification) for the teachers and others Academic staff of any Technical Institution (Degree / Diploma) Regulation, 2010. Meaning thereby the qualification for appointment on ASW is in consonance with the regulation of AICTE. 16. Thus from the above factual scenario it is apparent that graduate degree which the petitioner is holding comes under the major discipline of mechanical engineering with corresponding course of production engineering vide its notification dated 28.04.2017 and 06.10.2021 it is also clarified by AICTE that the mechanical engineering is the major discipline and production engineering is the corresponding course. 17. Affidavit of the AICTE also indicate that the recruiting organization should take into consideration the list of major discipline of engineering and technology their relevant / appropriate brach. Though it has been submitted that degree of the petitioner has been examined the purpose of equivalence by expert committee however there is no sufficient material available on record to suggest that as to whether the course/subject of the petitioner 12 while obtaining the B.E. (Industrial and Production Engineering) is not useful for the job recruitment of ASW. Nothing is available on record to suggest as to how the degree of petitioner is not suited for the job requirement as ASW. 18. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not in the domain of judicial review to draw the equivalent between the degree but at the same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there has to be cogent reasons for denying the equivalence of degree of the petitioner. It is also not reflected as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to demonstrate the equivalence of degree. 19. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of discussion made herein above, this Court is of the view that the respondent / State must be directed to constitute an expert committee consisting causing of three members to re- examine the equivalence of the degree of B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) held by bachelor to B.E (Industrial and Production Engineering). Two of them should be senior professor of mechanical engineering of any government engineering college and one competent officer of the respondent No. 1 who gave a report on the equivalence of degree of petitioner. While deciding the equivalence, it is expected that the committee would keep in mind the notification dated 28.04.2017 and 06.10.2021 of AICTE and also consider the job requirement of ASW as to whether the course / subject of the degree of petitioner are sufficient enough to perform the work of ASW. Needless to say the petitioner would 13 be given an opportunity to put-forth her case before the said committee. The expert committee shall submit its report to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and supply the same to the petitioner also. If the report finds favour of the petitioner, the respondents would proceed with the recruitment process by calling the petitioner for interview and take the recruitment process to its logical end. This exercise would be done by the respondents within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 20. By an interim order dated 21.11.2016 this Court has directed the respondents to keep one post of ASW vacant. This order will remain in operation till the expert committee submits its report to respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 21. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and observation. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE amita/pawan