Uttarakhand High Court
Pramod Kumar Alias Promod Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 16 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Reserved on: 10.06.2025
Delivered on: 16.06.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 91 of 2016
Pramod Kumar alias Promod Kumar -----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ---Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State /
respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner possesses B. Tech. (Mining
Engineering) qualification. By means of this writ petition,
he has sought the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus declaring “The Uttarakhand Geology and
Mining Service (Second Amendment), Rules 2015”, as
arbitrary, illogical, unreasonable and discriminatory,
and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India and, therefore, deserves to be struck down; and
may accordingly be struck down.
II. Alternatively, Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus declaring Para. “Three” of the sub-
rule (6) of Rule 8 of the rule “The Uttar Pradesh
Geology and Mining Service Rules, 1983” as introduced
by “The Uttarakhand Geology and Mining Service
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2015” as arbitrary,
illogical, unreasonable and discriminatory, and thus
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of1
India.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, declaring that the qualification of ‘Master’s
degree in geology’, introduced by clause “Three” of
sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 of the “The Uttarakhand Geology
and Mining Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2015”,
for the post of “Mines officer” is not a befitting
qualification for the post of “Mines officer”.
IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, declaring that the steps taken by the State
Government to reduce the opportunities of
appointment, on the post of “Mines officers”, for the
persons belonging to Mines branch; and introducing
additional opportunity of appointment for the persons
belonging to Geology branch, on the strength of the
Second Amendment Rules of 2015, is wholly
unreasonable and arbitrary, and, therefore, is violative
of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
2. According to the petitioner, earlier only a
candidate having degree or diploma in Mining Engineering
was eligible for appointment as Mines Officer in Geology
and Mining Department of the State Government,
however, by an amendment made in 2015 in Uttarakhand
Geology and Mining Service Rules, a candidate having
Master’s Degree in Geology was also declared eligible for
appointment as Mines Officer.
3. Petitioner contends that since candidates with
Master’s Degree in Geology are eligible for appointment
as Assistant Geologist in State Geology and Mining
Department, therefore, opening of additional avenue of
appointment for Geology qualification holders is arbitrary
and irrational. It is further contended that Geology
qualification holders have appointment opportunities in
other departments viz. State Public Works Department,
Central Public Works Department etc. whereas persons
2
with degree in Mining Engineering do not have such
appointment opportunities and they can be considered for
appointment only in Department of Geology and Mining.
Thus, it is contended that the Second Amendment Rules,
notified on 23.12.2015, are violative of Article 14 & 16 of
the Constitution of India, thus ultra vires.
4. This Court do not find any scope for
interference with the impugned provision in the
recruitment Rules. Every employer is entitled to prescribe
the qualifications needed for appointment to a particular
post, as he knows the job requirement and he has to take
work from the employees. This right, which is available to
every employer, cannot be denied to State Government.
5. In the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National
Bank and another v. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“17.3. Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, it is for the employer to determine and
decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications
for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and
assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the courts for
the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post.
There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are
prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an
institution or an industry or an establishment as the
case may be. The courts are not fit instruments to
assess expediency or advisability or utility of such
prescription of qualifications. However, at the same
time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in
prescribing qualifications for posts. In the present case,
prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational
qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be
eligible and the candidate must have passed 12th
standard is justified and as observed hereinabove, it is
a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force
since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred
in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent-
original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a3
Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the
eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in
the advertisement.”
6. In the case of Maharashtra Public Service
Commission through Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram
Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362, Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
“9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a
post are for the employer to decide. The employer may
prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including
any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best
suited to decide the requirements a candidate must
possess according to the needs of the employer and the
nature of work. The court cannot lay down the
conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the
issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a
par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-
writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence
will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the
language of the advertisement and the rules are clear,
the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If
there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is
contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back
to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to
proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the
court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of
the appointing authority to decide what is best for the
employer and interpret the conditions of the
advertisement contrary to the plain language of the
same.”
7. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a
Constitution Bench judgment rendered by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of
Tamil Nadu and another, (1974) 4 SCC 3. The principle
laid down in the said judgment is not applicable here, as
prescription of educational qualification for appointment
to a post is the sole prerogative of employer. Petitioner is
desirous of appointment as Mines Officer in a State
Department known as ‘Geology and Mining Department’.
Thus, it cannot be argued that a degree in Geology is
4
wholly irrelevant for appointment to a post in the said
department. The relevance of a particular qualification for
appointment as ‘Mines Officer’ or ‘Geologist’ is to be
decided by the employer i.e. State and the decision taken
by employer regarding weightage, which is to be given to
a particular qualification, is not justiciable.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon
the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd.
and others v. Union of India and others, (1985) 1 SCC
641. The principle laid down in the said judgment also do
not help the case of petitioner. Addition of Master’s
Degree in Geology as one of the qualification needed for
appointment as Mines Officer cannot be said to be
arbitrary merely because it may have the effect of
reducing the chance of appointment of a candidate with
degree in Mining Engineering.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon
the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza and others, reported
in (1981) AIR SC 1829, which is also not applicable to the
facts of the present case.
10. It is not a case where right to be considered for
appointment has been altogether taken away from
candidates having degree in Mining Engineering.
5
Petitioner himself admits that with degree in Mining
Engineering, he is eligible for appointment as Mines
Officer. His only grievance is that Geology qualification
holders should not be considered for appointment as
Mines Officer, as the said post was earlier earmarked for
Mining Engineering graduates/ diploma holders.
11. Since the employer has taken a conscious
decision to include Geology qualification holders in the
field of eligibility for appointment as Mines Officer,
therefore, in the absence of any valid ground for
challenging such inclusion, this Court do not find any
reason to interfere.
12. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
16.06.2025
Navin
6