Recognition of Electrical and Electronics Diploma as Equivalent: A Milestone in Recruitment Jurisprudence

Introduction

In the matter of SAJID KHAN vs. L RAHMATHULLAH & ORS. (2025 INSC 251), the Supreme Court of India addressed the crucial question of whether a diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering should be regarded as equivalent to a diploma in Electrical Engineering for recruitment purposes. The appellants, who were diploma-holders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, were selected for Junior Engineer (Electrical) posts under the Lakshadweep Electricity Department. However, their selection was challenged on the ground that the advertised qualification specifically mentioned “Electrical Engineering,” and did not explicitly list “Electrical and Electronics Engineering.” The High Court set aside the appointments, holding that they did not possess the required qualifications. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide the validity of the equivalency recognized by the appointing authority.

This judgment is significant because it reinforces the principle that employers are best placed to assess the equivalence of academic qualifications in recruitment, and it also clarifies the scope of judicial review in such matters.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the diploma-holders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. It set aside the judgment of the High Court and the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), reinstating the validity of the appellants’ appointments. The Court emphasized that:

The Lakshadweep Administration had already obtained an official clarification from the Department of Technical Education, Kerala, stating that a diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering is recognized as equivalent to a diploma in Electrical Engineering.
The appointing authority’s view that the two diplomas were equivalent should not be disturbed by the courts in the absence of any glaring or demonstrable error.
The courts should exhibit restraint in interfering with the appointing authority’s expert determination concerning equivalence of academic qualifications.
There should be concrete evidence of arbitrariness or illegality before courts intervene in such recruitment matters.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Several important precedents and judicial principles influenced the Supreme Court’s decision. Some of the key cases cited and discussed include:

Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610: Established that qualifications must be taken exactly as specified, and equivalency, if any, must be clearly provided or recognized by the relevant authority.
District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 65: Underlined that a public authority must adhere strictly to the qualifications stated in the advertisement and that deviation may amount to a “fraud on the public” if unauthorized.
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18: Held that an employer should be strictly bound by the qualifications advertised, and one cannot assume equivalency unless explicitly stated or recognized by relevant rules.
Anand Yadav v. State Of U.P. (2021) 12 SCC 390: Emphasized that the employer, in consultation with experts, is best positioned to judge whether a candidate meets the required qualifications; courts must defer to such expert determinations unless there is clear arbitrariness.
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2020) 4 SCC 86: Affirmed the principle that recruiting agencies must verify and be satisfied of a candidate’s qualifications. The burden lies on the candidate to meet prescribed criteria, but it is the employer’s prerogative to decide equivalency.
Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019) 6 SCC 362: Clarified that questions of equivalence generally lie outside the scope of judicial review since the employer is uniquely suited to define the job requirements.
Union of India v. Uzair Imran (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308): Reiterated that the function of determining equivalence of academic certificates belongs to the employer, not the courts; judicial intervention requires very strong evidence of impropriety.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court traced the evolution of the principle that “the employer is the best judge” of whether a certain qualification is suitable for a post. Since the Lakshadweep Administration had prior communication from the Kerala Directorate of Technical Education confirming the equivalency of diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering to those in Electrical Engineering, the Court found no error in the employer’s stance.

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the respondents challenging the appointments had presented no substantial proof of any factual or legal infirmity in the equivalency determination. Their objection largely revolved around the nomenclature of the diploma, rather than the syllabus, the subjects offered, or the duration of the course. Absent clear evidence of arbitrariness or irregularity, judicial restraint was considered vital.

Consequently, the Court applied the well-established doctrine that courts should seldom second-guess the employer’s assessment of job qualifications. Such powers are limited to cases where there is a clear miscarriage of justice or violation of fundamental rights.

C. Impact

This ruling carries a significant impact on future judicial scrutiny of recruitment processes:

Deference to Employer’s Decision: Courts will generally defer to the employer’s technical and expert assessment concerning whether a qualification is genuinely equivalent.
Reduced Litigation: By clarifying that nomenclature alone cannot trump official clarifications and thorough employer evaluations, this judgment helps deter recruitment-related disputes based solely on technicalities.
Emphasis on Substance over Form: In cases involving partially similar degrees or diplomas, the actual syllabus, credits, and recognized stature of the course will be considered more relevant than mere titles.
Guidance on Judicial Review: The decision underscores that courts will only intervene when there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, bias, or irrationality in the recruiting agency’s conclusion regarding equivalency.

Complex Concepts Simplified

In legal terms, “equivalence” refers to the determination that one academic credential is substantially similar in curriculum, scope, and skill-set to another. The Court’s guidance is that if an employer, supported by expert verification, treats two seemingly different nomenclatures as carrying the same weight, the courts will normally accept that determination unless there is a glaring mistake.

Additionally, “judicial review” in this context means that courts examine whether the decision-makers acted within the confines of the law, without bias, and without ignoring essential considerations. It does not allow the court to step into the role of the employer to reevaluate academic credentials afresh.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in SAJID KHAN vs. L RAHMATHULLAH & ORS. reconfirms a vital aspect of recruitment jurisprudence: that employers, with appropriate technical and expert inputs, are better positioned to decide whether a diploma or degree meets the qualification requirements for a post. Courts will not interfere lightly in such determinations unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or illegality is demonstrated.

In effect, the judgment underscores that form should not override substance. A diploma labeled differently may still be functionally equivalent if its content is comparable. By reinstating the appointments of the appellants, this decision provides clarity for both employers and applicants navigating complex equivalency questions, emphasizing that expert confirmation and fairness in recruitment processes should guide all parties involved.