AMICE cannot be treated as equivalent to AMIE without formal recognition by a competent authority.

The three connected writ petitions—W.P.(S) Nos. 3750 of 2022, 4903 of 2022 and 6478 of 2024—were filed by Junior Engineers serving under the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand.

The petitioners possessed AMICE qualifications issued by the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, and sought recognition of AMICE as equivalent to AMIE for consideration against the 10% promotional quota for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer under Government Resolutions dated 01.09.2009 and 07.03.2022.

The petitioners also challenged departmental orders dated 20.12.2010, 02.09.2013 and 03.05.2019, as well as the notification dated 22.03.2023 granting promotion to certain private respondents.

The State maintained that the AMICE qualification was not recognised for appointment or promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and relied upon the Jharkhand Engineering Service Rules and the AICTE’s policy position.

The AICTE stated that the Institution of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana, had recognition only for the academic session 2007–2008 and had not received any subsequent extension.

The petitioners had enrolled in the institution between 2008 and 2013.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Jharkhand Engineering Service, Appointment and other Service Conditions Rules, 2025, were notified, prescribing an engineering degree from a recognised institution or an AMIE qualification for promotion to Assistant Engineer.

1. Whether the AMICE qualification obtained from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, is equivalent to the AMIE qualification for the purpose of eligibility under the 10% promotional quota for Assistant Engineer?

2. Whether the State’s decisions refusing to recognise AMICE qualifications for appointment or promotion were arbitrary, illegal or liable to be quashed?

3. Whether, in determining the petitioners’ eligibility, the Court was required to apply the Jharkhand Engineering Service Rules, 2025 prevailing on the date of decision?

The Court applied the principle that equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical and academic question reserved for the recruiting authority, the State Government or competent expert bodies; courts exercising judicial review cannot themselves declare one qualification equivalent to another or expand the prescribed eligibility criteria.

This principle was drawn from Unnikrishnan C.V. v. Union of India, (2023) 18 SCC 546, Devender Bhaskar v. State of Haryana, (2024) 19 SCC 506, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, and related authorities.

Equivalence must be established by a specific order or resolution of the competent authority and cannot be inferred merely from similarity of courses.

The State, as employer, is competent to prescribe qualifications for promotion, subject only to judicial review on grounds such as arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality or perversity.

The Court further applied the rule that the law prevailing on the date of decision-making governs the adjudication, relying on Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142.

Under the 2025 Rules, promotion to Assistant Engineer required an engineering degree from a recognised institution or an AMIE qualification.

The Court held that no notification, order or communication issued by a competent authority established that AMICE from the Institution of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana, was equivalent to AMIE from the Institution of Engineers (India).

More significantly, the AICTE and Government of India materials showed that the Ludhiana institution had recognition only for the 2007–2008 academic session and no extension thereafter; the petitioners had enrolled after that period.

Consequently, the question of equivalence could not arise in the absence of valid recognition, and the Court could not undertake an independent academic assessment of the qualification.

The State’s refusal to recognise the qualification was based on consistent departmental decisions and the AICTE’s policy, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate that those decisions were arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to any binding direction.

The Patna High Court judgment relied upon by the petitioners did not declare AMICE equivalent to AMIE; it merely directed the Bihar Government to take a decision, and Bihar’s subsequent policy was not binding on Jharkhand.

Applying the law prevailing on the date of decision, the Court held that the 2025 Rules also did not assist the petitioners because they required a recognised engineering degree or AMIE qualification.

The petitioners nevertheless remained eligible for consideration under the separate 28% promotional quota for other Junior Engineers.

The writ petitions were dismissed, and the challenge to the departmental orders and promotions was rejected.

The interim order dated 05.05.2026 was vacated.

The State Government was directed to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee within six weeks and grant promotion to all eligible candidates.

Pending interlocutory applications were closed.