Essential engineering qualifications govern promotion; experience cannot substitute for a degree recalled by the Supreme Court.

Purna Chandra Kahili was appointed as a Draftsman with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in 1997; the post was later redesignated as Technical Assistant.

While in service, he obtained a Diploma in Civil Engineering and subsequently a B.Tech. degree in Civil Engineering through distance education from Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth for the academic years 2008–2011.

Relying, inter alia, on that degree, he was appointed as Manager (Technical) with effect from 18.05.2012 and later promoted/posted as Deputy General Manager (Technical) with effect from 18.05.2016.

NHAI consequently reverted Kahili to the post of Technical Assistant on 01.03.2021.

After issuing a show-cause notice and considering Kahili’s response, NHAI again reverted him by memorandum dated 27.06.2024.

The Tribunal subsequently quashed the memorandum on 06.02.2025, holding, inter alia, that a degree in Civil Engineering was not essential for promotion to Manager (Technical) and that the earlier High Court judgment had effectively supported that interpretation.

Whether the Tribunal misread the High Court’s earlier judgment dated 08.09.2022 as having conclusively held that a degree in Civil Engineering was not an essential qualification for promotion to Manager (Technical)?

Whether, under the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996, a degree in Civil Engineering was an essential qualification for appointment or promotion to the post of Manager (Technical)?

Whether the qualifications and alternatives contained in Column 8 of the Schedule to the 1996 Regulations provided a promotional route to the post of Manager (Technical) without requiring the educational qualification prescribed in Column 7?

Whether Kahili’s technical experience could substitute for the prescribed engineering degree, and whether NHAI was bound to withdraw the promotion in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Orissa Lift Irrigation ?

The Court applied the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996, particularly Regulations 4 and 5 and Columns 5–8 of the Schedule, holding that statutory eligibility conditions and prescribed educational qualifications cannot be diluted by administrative or judicial sympathy.

It relied on Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Shankar Patro , which directed that engineering degrees obtained through impermissible distance education be treated as cancelled and that benefits such as promotion or career advancement secured on their basis be withdrawn, while prohibiting recovery of monetary benefits.

It applied State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir , which held that prescribed engineering qualifications apply to promotees as well as direct recruits and that experience cannot substitute for an essential educational qualification.

The Court also relied on the limits of judicial review stated in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science v. Bikartan Das , permitting interference where the Tribunal’s decision is perverse or contains an error apparent on the face of the record.

The principles of natural justice required an opportunity to show cause where the governing rules admitted of more than one plausible interpretation, as recognised in the earlier High Court judgment.

The Court held that the earlier High Court judgment had not decided the substantive interpretation of Column 8; it had only found that the regulations were capable of two interpretations and therefore directed compliance with natural justice before reversion.

The Tribunal consequently committed an error apparent on the face of the record by treating the earlier judgment as a binding determination that no engineering degree was required for promotees.

On examining the 1996 Regulations, the Court found that Column 8 dealt with categories for deputation or transfer and did not prescribe a feeder cadre or promotional route to Manager (Technical).

A contrary interpretation would produce the absurd result that any NHAI employee possessing the requisite length of service, even without technical qualifications, could claim eligibility for a senior technical post.

The Court further noted that the 2011 advertisement expressly prescribed a degree in Civil Engineering as an essential qualification and that Kahili himself had applied on the basis that he possessed it.

Once the degree was recalled and cancelled under the Supreme Court’s directions, the promotion obtained on its basis had to be withdrawn.

Kahili’s experience, diploma, or continued service could not cure the absence of the mandatory qualification, since experience cannot replace an essential educational requirement under the rules.

Failure by NHAI to withdraw the promotion would itself have conflicted with the Supreme Court’s directions in Orissa Lift Irrigation .

It held that the Tribunal had grossly misread both the earlier High Court judgment and the 1996 Regulations, and that a valid degree in Civil Engineering was required for the relevant technical appointment or promotion.

Kahili’s cancelled distance-education degree could not support his promotion, and his experience could not substitute for the prescribed qualification.

The writ petition was allowed; the Tribunal’s judgment dated 06.02.2025 was quashed and set aside, and NHAI’s memorandum dated 27.06.2024 reverting Kahili from Deputy General Manager (Technical) to Technical Assistant was restored.

No recovery of monetary benefits was ordered, and there was no order as to costs.