Supreme Court on Difference between a Degree and a Diploma

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Puneet Sharma and Others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 291. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed whether a Degree in a particular discipline is technically a higher qualification than a Diploma in that discipline.

 

In order to understand this, let us briefly discuss the facts of the case at hand.

 

FACTS

 

In the present case, certain posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) were advertised for which the minimum essential qualification provided for was matriculation with Diploma in Electrical/Electronics and Communication/Computer Science from a recognized Institution, or AMIE from Institution of Engineers (India). It is pertinent to note that AMIE stands for "Associate Member of the Institution of Engineers" and is a professional certification given by Institution of Engineers (India) that is considered equivalent to the degree of B.Tech. Persons holding a recognized Diploma can pursue the course of AMIE.

 

In the present case, apart from the Diploma holders, Degree holders also applied for the post of Junior Engineer, but their candidature was denied on the ground that “a degree in engineering is not in the same line as a diploma in engineering” and both of them are distinct qualifications making it untenable to view a Degree as a higher qualification than a Diploma. Therefore, the Degree Holders approached the Supreme Court.

 

RELEVANT CASE - LAWS

 

In order to further understand the conundrum relating to a Degree and a Diploma, the Court discussed various case-laws where similar situations arose in the past. The relevant ones are: -

 

Firstly, in the case of P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541, it was held that the qualification of B.Ed. Degree cannot be considered as a higher qualification than the qualification of TTC (Trained Teacher Certificate) as TTC qualification is given to teachers especially trained to teach small children of primary classes, whereas B.Ed. degree holders are trained to impart education to students of higher classes.

 

Secondly, in a similar case, Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548, same stipulations i.e., B.Ed. and TTC qualifications, were considered and it was observed that “a specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree.”

 

Thirdly, in the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596, it was held that for the post of sub-engineer for which the minimum statutory qualification was a Diploma in Electrical Engineering, even the candidates possessing degree in the relevant discipline could be considered for recruitment. It is pertinent to note that in this case, there was a specific statutory rule that prescribed for the minimum qualification only and this could presuppose acquisition of a lower qualification by the degree holders.

 

Fourthly, the Court also cited the case of Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 897, where the post in question was that of Peon for which it was specifically provided in the rules that only those who held 10+2 pass qualifications would be considered and those with graduation qualification could not be considered. It was held that “as to what qualifications are applicable to what class of posts, is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the employer, which the courts would be slow to interdict.”

 

So, those were the relevant case-laws discussed by the Court. Let us understand what was held by the Court in this case.

 

HELD BY THE COURT

 

The court looked into the relevant service rules and observed that there is a post of Assistant Engineer on which the Junior Engineers could get promoted and 5% of the promotional posts of the Assistant Engineer is meant for those Junior Engineers who hold degrees before joining as Junior Engineers. According to the Court, such rules make it amply clear that “degree holders too could compete for the position of JEs as individuals holding equivalent or higher qualifications” and without such interpretation, there would be no meaning of 5% quota on the post of Assistant Engineer.

 

It was also observed by the Court that the fact that the persons having AMIE qualifications are allowed to contest for the post of Junior Engineer makes it clear that even the persons who have equivalent qualification to B.Tech are eligible for the said post.

 

Thus, upon cumulative consideration of the relevant case-laws and service rules, the Court held that though the general rule is that the prescription of a specific qualification excludes the higher qualifications, yet the Service Rules applicable to a particular case cannot be overlooked and in the present case, the intent of the rule makers is clear to not to exclude degree holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers. Therefore, the Degree Holders were allowed to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In conclusion, I would like to say that I agree with the reasoning of the Court. There should not be any differentiation or discrimination between persons who hold a Degree and a Diploma, and a Degree course may be more comprehensive than a Diploma Course but the same does not mean that the Degree Holders are superior to Diploma Holders. Every academic course has its own utility and as the Court rightly pointed out, what is of prime consideration is the intention of the recruiters or the rule-makers.