Back
Allahabad High Court Holds Writ Court Cannot Determine Degree Equivalence Without Rules
A Question of Equivalence
The has firmly ruled that a cannot act as an to decide whether one degree is equivalent to another when the governing make no provision for such . The decision came in a petition filed by Kopal Bhartiya and seven others, candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher (Computer) whose candidature was rejected because they held a B.Tech in Information Technology instead of the prescribed B.Tech in Computer Science.
The advertisement, issued under Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2025 by the , required B.Tech/B.E. in Computer Science, or graduation in Computer Science or Computer Application, or a graduation degree with an 'A' Level course from , or a B.Tech in Computer Science with an MCA. The petitioners argued that B.Tech (IT) should be treated as equivalent, pointing to a government notification dated that acknowledged difficulties in recruiting candidates for posts requiring engineering qualifications.
Arguments on Both Sides
Counsel for the petitioners, , contended that the IT curriculum covers substantial and direct study of computer applications, programming, database systems, software engineering, and networking, making it equivalent to Computer Science. However, counsel for the Commission, , submitted that the Commission is bound by the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and cannot deviate from them, as any deviation would affect and place candidates who chose not to apply at an inequitable position. He argued that is a matter for the state government to decide after convening a committee of experts.
The State's Stand
The court had initially directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Secondary Education) to file an affidavit on the state's policy regarding
. As an interim measure, the petitioners were permitted to provisionally appear in the main examination scheduled for
. The subsequent affidavit disclosed that the state had amended the
through the Sixth Amendment in 2024, notified on
. This amendment, the affidavit said, had effectively
"abolished
in all subjects."
The rules now prescribe the same qualifications as in the advertisement, with no provision for equivalent degrees.
Court's Reasoning
Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the , as amended, govern the area and do not stipulate consideration of any equivalent subject. The court noted that it cannot, under Article 226 of the Constitution, sit as an to determine .
“This Court is constrained to hold that the law governing the area i.e. Rules, 2024, after having prescribed the qualifications and there being no stipulation for consideration of any equivalent subject, as desired by the petitioners in the present writ petition, now in exercise of power under , this Court cannot sit as an for determining the of the educational qualification.”
The court also noted that the Commission had not stipulated consideration of any equivalent course in the advertisement, and any deviation would undermine in the recruitment process.
Final Order
Holding that the petitioners do not possess the eligibility prescribed in the advertisement, the court concluded that no relief could be granted. “The present writ petition is accordingly, ,” Justice Siddharth Nandan ordered.
The judgment reinforces that writ courts must defer to the qualifications expressly laid down in , leaving the determination of degree to academic experts and policy makers. It serves as a clear precedent that courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of rule-making authorities in matters of educational qualification .
