Techno Global Diploma Not Recognised As Equivalent For Sanitary Inspector Post; Uttarakhand HC Upholds Candidate’s Rejection

The appellant applied for the post of Sanitary Inspector, for which the advertisement required a B.Sc. and a one-year Diploma in Hygiene and Sanitation from the State Health Institute, or an equivalent one-year diploma from an institute recognised by the State Government.

He held a one-year diploma from Techno Global University, Meghalaya, but the selecting body did not consider it recognised as equivalent to the specified diploma and rejected his candidature.

The Single Judge dismissed his challenge; the appellant appealed.

The appellate court also recorded that respondent no. 4 had been appointed to the post on 9 March 2023.

The relevant qualification was the requirement in the recruitment advertisement: a B.Sc. with a one-year Diploma in Hygiene and Sanitation from the State Health Institute, or an equivalent one-year diploma from an institute recognised by the State Government.

The court affirmed that an institution’s own assessment that its diploma subjects are equivalent does not itself establish the diploma’s equivalence for recruitment; the equivalence must be recognised by a body legally competent to determine it.

The University Grants Commission communication relied on by the appellant concerned permission for the institution’s establishment and infrastructure, not recognition or equivalence of the appellant’s diploma.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited in the appellate judgment.

The appellant’s diploma was not recognised as equivalent to the diploma specified in the advertisement, so he did not meet the stated qualification condition.

The court found no basis to disturb the Single Judge’s conclusion; the University Grants Commission communication did not establish the diploma’s required recognition or equivalence.

The court nevertheless preserved the appellant’s ability to raise the equivalence issue before an Equivalence Committee if the question of his eligibility arose again.

The court directed that, if the same eligibility issue arose in the future, the appellant could seek referral of the matter to an Equivalence Committee.