A Genuine Diploma from an Unrecognized Institution Does Not Meet Prescribed Recruitment Qualifications

The appellant, employed as a Conductor with KSRTC, was selected through an internal recruitment process for the post of Establishment Supervisor.

The prescribed qualification included a bachelor’s degree and a Diploma in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations from a university established by law, along with computer knowledge.

KSRTC issued a show-cause notice stating that the appellant’s diploma was not from an institution recognized or accredited by UGC, AICTE, AIU or DEC.

After considering his reply, KSRTC removed his name from the select list; his appeal against that decision was rejected.

The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000. The appellant challenged that order in this writ appeal.

1. Whether the appellant’s diploma, issued by the Council for Eradication of Scientific and Technical Illiteracy, satisfied the qualification prescribed for appointment as Establishment Supervisor.

2. Whether the direction requiring the appellant to pay Rs. 25,000 in costs should be set aside.

The Court applied the qualification prescribed in the employment notification: a bachelor’s degree and a Diploma in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations from a university established by law, with computer knowledge.

It also considered the requirement stated in the show-cause notice that the diploma be from an institution recognized or accredited by UGC, AICTE, AIU or DEC.

The appeal was brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

No precedent or broader legal doctrine was cited.

The Court found that the appellant’s certificate was issued by the Council for Eradication of Scientific and Technical Illiteracy, and there was no contention that the Council had accreditation from UGC, AICTE, AIU or DEC.

Although the certificate was not found to be fake or fraudulent, that fact did not establish that it met the notification’s qualification requirements.

The Court therefore upheld the removal of the appellant’s name from the select list.

However, because there was no allegation that the certificate was fake or fraudulent, it considered the costs unwarranted.

The appeal was disposed of.