The division bench of High Court of Jammu & kashmir and Ladakh comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal & Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi recently held that the courts are not experts to substitute their own views on the interpretation of Recruitment Rules, the same falls within the domain of Rule making authority.

The Petitioners had thrown a challenge to the Judgment passed by Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Srinagar Bench in O.A. No. 226/2022 whereby the OA filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioner were aggrieved of their non-consideration for the post of Draftsman (Civil) as being in possession of three years diploma in Civil Engineering and hence eligible for the post advertised by the J&K SSB (Recruitment Agency).

Pertinent to note that the eligibility as prescribed for the posts was: “2 years Draftsman training course certificate/diploma from any govt. recognized institute”

The petitioners had alleged that the selection list issued by the recruitment agency is in clear violation of the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering Subordinate Service, Recruitment Rules,1997.  Since, the advertisement clearly provides that the qualification for the post of Draftsman is two years draftsman training course certificate/diploma from any government recognised institution. The petitioners being possessed of three years diploma in Civil Engineering from a government recognised institution i.e. JK Board of Technical Education, were found to be eligible. They were not only permitted to take part in the computer based written test but also were declared successful with high percentile. The petitioners were also directed to submit their order of preference of the post against which they wanted to be selected. The recruitment agency excluded the eligibility of the petitioners from the selection process on account of fact that they possessed three years diploma in Civil Engineering which as per petitioners was in clear violation of the Recruitment Rules of 1997. It was stated that in all earlier selections, the candidates with three years diploma in Civil Engineering were considered eligible, they were selected and consequently appointed and are still serving in the respondent departments. The Petitioners relied upon various judgements including Dr Krishan Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa (SC) reported as (1995) 6 SCC (1); Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (SC), 1978 (1) SCC 405; Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another, AIR 2021 SC 2221 in support of their contentions.

The recruitment agency on the other side has contended that in terms of the eligibility criteria  only the candidates with two years draftsman training course certificate or diploma in draftsman from any recognized institute were eligible and not those possessing diploma in Civil Engineering. Thus, taking into account the intention of the indenting department the recruitment board declared the candidates with diploma in Civil Engineering as not eligible. Further it was argued that it is not the duration of the diploma but the nature of it that is relevant. The respondents argued that only those candidates were eligible for the post of draftsman who are possessing only two years draftsman training course certificate or diploma in draftsman from any recognised institute and not diploma in Civil Engineering.

The question that came up for the consideration of the court was to see the intent of Rule making authority and interpretation of the Rules which prescribes the qualification for the post of Draftsman as mentioned in the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1997.

The court ruled that the interpretation must depend on the text and the context. Best interpretation makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. The Rules must be looked at as a whole. It is very important to ascertain the exact meaning of the words which the Rule making authority has used, but it is not permissible to add/read words in a Rule which are not there.

While referring to Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules of 1996 which read as under:

“13. Interpretation- if any question arises relating to the interpretation of these Rules, the matter shall be referred to the government whose decision thereon shall be final and binding.”

The court held that it is not inclined to supplant its opinion by overseeing its jurisdiction. It was further held that the Court is not an expert to substitute its views on interpretation of Recruitment rules as the Same falls within the domain of Rule making authority. The court while noting the admitted position that the respondents have been adhering to the interpretation of the eligibility criteria as “Two years draftsman certificate / two years diploma in draftsman from Government recognised Institute” since 2014 didn’t interfere with the selection process.

The court observed “The Rule needs to be interpreted with its legal language and understanding of the intention of the Rule making authority. There can be many ambiguities, uncertainties, incompleteness in the words and Rule may reflect several meanings but it‟s the responsibility of the Rule making authority to avoid such ambiguities and to give a clear and precise meaning, deriving clear attention of the Rule making authority, while exercising its power in decision-making process.” 

The court while noting the ambiguity in the eligibility criteria for the post of draftsman disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to examine the minimum qualification prescribed for the post in terms of Recruitment Rules in consultation with a team of experts and take a final decision in terms of Rule 13 to settle the controversy once and for all.