Judges not domain experts to equate qualifications: High Court

Making it clear that courts cannot assume the role of academic experts in recruitment matters, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it cannot render a finding on whether prescribed academic qualifications are equivalent to others.

The Bench further ruled that a diploma or degree in civil engineering could not be treated as equivalent to a diploma in architecture or architecture assistantship for appointments to the post of Building Inspector (Technical).

The ruling by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar came on a bunch of petitions filed by candidates claiming that their higher or identical academic qualifications in civil engineering entitled them to apply for the advertised posts of Building Inspector (Technical) in the Department of Local Government.

Justice Brar’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the Punjab Public Service Commission had invited applications for 157 posts of Building Inspector (Technical) through an advertisement dated June 17, 2022. A clause of the advertisement prescribed the essential qualification of a “Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship or higher” along with matric-level Punjabi.

The petitioners contended that they possessed a diploma or degree in civil engineering, yet they were unable to apply online as the application form compulsorily required the candidate to tick the box for “Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship”, with no option to enter higher or equivalent qualifications. Their case was that civil engineering courses included architecture as a subject, thereby making them eligible.

Justice Brar, however, observed: the petitioners claim competence to perform the duties of a Building Inspector (Technical) by virtue of their diploma/degree in Civil Engineering. But the advertisement categorically called for a Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship. “In order to comment on their alike nature, this court would have to don the robes of a domain expert, which is expressly proscribed by a catena of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court,” the court added.

Justice Brar further held that the eligibility condition was “not merely directory but is mandatory in nature.” Referring to the distinct nomenclature of the two courses, the Bench added: “Considering that these courses have distinct nomenclature, there must be some difference in the nature of their respective syllabi. As such, only an expert in his/her field can truly and correctly draw equivalence between two degrees as they would possess the requisite knowledge to take the said decision.”

Justice Brar also made it clear that the power to decide the essential qualifications for a post lay with the employer. “The essential qualifications that will allow a candidate to discharge duties of a Building Inspector (Technical) would fall in the exclusive domain of the employer as they are well versed with the nature of the job,” the court asserted.

Justice Brar added the question of equivalence might only be answered by an expert, which could be the employer itself or the relevant commission. “Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed.”