Judgment on Qualification Criteria for Promotions: Diploma vs. Degree Holders

In a recent landmark case, the Supreme Court of India examined the qualification criteria for promotions, particularly focusing on the differences between Diploma and Degree holders. The case involved a dispute regarding accelerated promotion quotas and the balance between educational qualifications and equality in employment opportunities. Explore the insights and ramifications of the judgment in the ongoing debate over promotion criteria between Diploma and Degree holders.


  • Different educational qualifications may be integrated but it is permissible to treat them differently based on qualifications.
  • No differentiation should be made between Degree holders and Diploma holders for promotion if both are regarded as fit and eligible.
  • If Degree is not the required qualification for the feeder post, two different periods of experience for promotion is not permissible.
  • Different service experience may be fixed for Degree holders and Diploma holders if both qualifications are considered for the feeder post.
  • The High Court’s opinion was based on the fact that no distinction was made between Diploma and Degree holders for the feeder post qualification, which has been set aside in a previous Civil Appeal.
  • The Irrigation Department advertised 200 posts for recruitment.
  • Recruitment to the post of AE (Civil) was governed by certain rules.
  • The rules provided for 50% promotion and 50% direct recruitment, with specific criteria for promotion.
  • An amendment made changes to the appointment ratio, increasing the promotion quota to 60%.
  • This change allowed individuals with a Degree in Engineering to be considered for promotion with only three years of service.
  • Diploma-holders in the JEs felt aggrieved due to the promotion criteria favoring Degree-holders.
  • Writ proceedings were filed by Diploma-holders challenging the accelerated promotion quota.
  • The accelerated promotion quota was struck down by the Uttarakhand High Court as violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
  • An interim order stayed the impugned order, maintaining the Rules for eight years.
  • The present appeal is to be examined in this narrow context.
  • Historical perspectives of the rules and regulations related to promotions in the Irrigation Department were reviewed.
  • Certain controversies and disputes regarding qualification criteria for promotions were highlighted.
  • A judgment of the Allahabad High Court regarding the separate quota for degree and diploma holders was mentioned.
  • The historical aspect showed similar situations in Uttar Pradesh.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Single Till Mechanism for HRAB Calculation: A Comprehensive Analysis


  • The argument presented by the petitioner focuses on the inconsistencies observed in different principles set forth in the discussion.
  • The petitioner argues that the appellant has the right to provide a higher qualification for a promotion post based on various judicial pronouncements.
  • Inconsistencies in the principles culled out in para 30 of the impugned judgment are highlighted by the petitioner.
  • The requirement of a Degree was specified only for direct recruitment to the post of AEs, as emphasized by the petitioner.
  • There is a debate on the interpretation of the expression ‘similarly situated,’ acknowledging the legislative rights and the need for a flexible application of the test.
  • Attention is drawn to sub-para 10, indicating that for posts where direct recruitment requires a Degree but can also be filled by promotion, a higher ratio for Degree-holders’ promotion is permissible.
  • The petitioner points out a case where a Rule regarding quota between Degree-holders and Diploma-holders was struck down by the Court, advocating for a middle course of reasonable classification.

Also Read: Ineligibility of Resolution Professional and Resolution Applicant – Revisiting the Correct Interpretation of Section 29-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code


  • Graduate Supervisors and non-graduate Supervisors were treated differently for promotions under both sets of Rules.
  • The Andhra Rules maintained distinct pay scales for the two categories of Supervisors.
  • An accelerated promotion route was introduced for Degree holders as an incentive to acquire higher qualifications.
  • The differentiation in treatment between graduate and non-graduate Supervisors was justified by the need for higher technical quality in the promotional cadre.
  • The Rule making authority was within its legislative competence to impose restrictions based on educational qualifications for promotions.
  • The judgment emphasized the necessity of balancing the equality principle with the principle of classification in service jurisprudence.
  • The judgment discussed the question of preferential treatment based on educational qualifications for promotion.
  • Various cases were cited to establish the validity of classification based on educational qualifications.
  • The judgment highlighted the importance of equal opportunity for individuals with different educational backgrounds.
  • It was emphasized that discrimination based on educational qualifications not relevant to the duties of the higher post goes against the spirit of equality.
  • Judgment cannot be sustained and challenge to the Rule is misplaced.
  • The historical perspective supports the Rule and the 7.33% quota was never assailed previously.
  • Transition from direct recruitment quota to promotion quota through accelerated promotion for degree holders does not violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
  • Inconsistencies pointed out in the principles laid down in the impugned judgment.
  • Equal ratio in direct recruitment for promotion quota would have eliminated grievances of Diploma holders.

Also Read: Selection and Appointment of Judicial Officers in Himachal Pradesh


  • The appeal is dismissed in view of the order passed in CA No.10194/2013.
  • The relevant portion of the Rules providing for accelerated promotion/sub quota for Degree-holders was struck down.
  • Relying upon the judgment of the High Court in WP No.267/2010 (S/B) which was set aside in CA No.10194/2013.
  • The impugned order is set aside, upholding the relevant Rule.
  • Parties are left to bear their own costs.
  • The consequence would be the dismissal of the writ petition by the Diploma-holders and the appeal of the Government being allowed.


Case Number: C.A. No.-010194-010194 / 2013

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *