1. Dispute over eligibility of candidates holding M.Ed. degrees for appointment as Assistant Professors in Education versus those with M.A. (Education) degrees under UGC Regulations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 587
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Anand Yadav & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020
Decided On : 12-10-2020
Important Points
The Court held that M.Ed. and M.A. (Education) are both recognized master's degrees. Decisions on qualification equivalence made by expert bodies and the employer are entitled to deference in judicial review, provided they align with statutory regulations, as matters of education should be left to educationists.
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Eligibility
Act Referred
Headnote
M.Ed. Degree - Eligibility for Assistant Professor - UGC Act, 1956, UGC Regulations 2010 - The court discussed the competing interests of post-graduates having the degree of M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. The dispute arose from Advertisement No. 46 and 47 of 2014 and 2016, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in various subjects, including 'Education'. The controversy revolved around the equivalence of M.Ed. Degree to M.A. (Education) and whether M.Ed. is a post-graduation in the relevant subject. The court considered the UGC Act, 1956, and UGC Regulations 2010, which specified the qualifications for Assistant Professors in 'Education'. The court analyzed the expert opinions, the stand of UGC and NCTE, and the previous judicial precedents to determine the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Professor in Education.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute originated from Advertisement No. 46 and 47 of 2014 and 2016, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in various subjects, including 'Education'. The controversy revolved around the equivalence of M.Ed. Degree to M.A. (Education) and whether M.Ed. is a post-graduation in the relevant subject. The High Court opined that M.Ed. qualified person could not be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Education, and consequently, the corrigendum dated 11.7.2016 was quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the M.Ed. degree is indeed a master's degree in Education as recognized by the UGC under the UGC Act, 1956. The court also noted that the NCTE recognized M.Ed. as a master's programme in Education and opined that M.Ed. qualified itself as a master's programme in Education. The court emphasized that the employer, i.e., respondent No. 2, had accepted the recommendation of the expert committee and that the issue of equivalence was rightly considered by the NCTE. The court also highlighted that the NCTE recognized some distinct aspects of the two degrees and concluded that for the job of Assistant Professors (Education), both M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. degree-holders are eligible.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the equivalence of M.Ed. Degree to M.A. (Education) and whether M.Ed. is a post-graduation in the relevant subject. The court also considered the absence of relevant authorities and affected candidates in the initial proceedings, the stand of UGC and NCTE, and the previous judicial precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the M.Ed. degree is recognized as a master's degree in Education by the UGC and NCTE. The court emphasized that the employer had accepted the recommendation of the expert committee and that the issue of equivalence was rightly considered by the NCTE. The court also highlighted that the NCTE recognized some distinct aspects of the two degrees and concluded that for the job of Assistant Professors (Education), both M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. degree-holders are eligible.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, repelled the challenge to the corrigendum dated 11.7.2016, and dismissed the appeal arising out of the order dated 14.5.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 61 of 2015. The court also directed the declaration of the result of the recruitment process to facilitate the employment of eligible candidates and the benefit of education for students.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Ramesh Tripathi, Anuj Chaturvedi, Amit Pawan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Antriksh Singh, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, P.Srinivasan, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Jeetendra Kumar Tripathi, Manish Kumar, Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, K. Sarada Devi, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Ramesh Tripathi, Anuj Chaturvedi, Gyan Prakash Srivastava, Anil Kumar Jha, Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
For the Appellant :Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Ramesh Tripathi, Anuj Chaturvedi, Amit Pawan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Antriksh Singh, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, P.Srinivasan, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Jeetendra Kumar Tripathi, Manish Kumar, Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, K. Sarada Devi, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Ramesh Tripathi, Anuj Chaturvedi, Gyan Prakash Srivastava, Anil Kumar Jha, Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
Table of Contents
2. Whether M.Ed. is a professional training qualification or a master's degree equivalent to M.A. (Education) for academic appointments under UGC and NCTE norms. (Para 10 , 11 , 23 , 24 )
3. Statutory bodies and expert committees recognize M.Ed. as a master's degree eligible for Assistant Professor roles based on duration and curricular inputs. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Determination of qualification equivalence is a matter for the employer and expert bodies; judicial review should not interfere with decisions made by educationists. (Para 34 , 36 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside; corrigendum allowing M.Ed. candidates upheld; results ordered to be declared. (Para 37 , 38 )
6. Is an M.Ed. degree considered a master's degree for appointment as Assistant Professor in Education?
Yes. The UGC and NCTE recognize M.Ed. as a master's level degree. An expert committee concluded that because M.Ed. requires a B.Ed., the combined duration and curricular inputs qualify it as a master's programme in education. (Para 19 , 22 , 29 , 30 )
7. What is the legal distinction between M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. degrees?
M.A. (Education) is an academic degree in the discipline of education focusing on theoretical aspects, whereas M.Ed. is a professional practitioner's degree focusing on pedagogical orientation and school experience. (Para 20 , 22 )
8. To what extent can courts interfere with an employer's decision on the equivalence of educational qualifications?
Courts should not sit as expert bodies over the decisions of eminent educationists. Equivalence is a matter of recruitment policy for the employer to determine, and judicial review must tread warily in such administrative decisions. (Para 31 , 34 , 36 )
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
The competing interests of post-graduates having the degree of M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. has given rise to a spate of litigation, and the present dispute flows from this. There are judicial precedents dealing with this issue, but in a relevant factual context. Further, there has been, to some extent, a pendulum swing in the stand of the concerned authorities in analysing this controversy based upon inputs from experts.
The Factual Matrix:
2. The origination of the dispute is Advertisement No. 46, which was issued by respondent No. 2, the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection Commission (for short 'UPHESSC') in March, 2014 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in various subjects, including 'Education'. The candidature of appellant No. 2 was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the minimum criteria set out by the University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC'), respondent No. 4, although he had an M.Ed. Degree. This caused the said appellant to approach the High Court by filing Writ-A No. 61 of 2015.
3. The process in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement was nearly completed while the writ petition was still pending, and a subsequent advertisement, i.e., Advertisement No. 47 of 2016 was issued. This was once again for the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects, including hundred posts in 'Education' in Government aided non-Government universities. The eligibility criteria for the same was specified in para 6 of the advertisement, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"Minimum Educational Qualifications
6. Mandatory Educational Qualification
The prescribed minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant Professor mentioned in this advertisement is described under:
6.1 For the post of Assistant Professor for the subjects other than Singing and Fine Arts
6.1.1 Good academic record with 55 Percent score in relevant subject at Post Graduate Level (Or with similar scoring in relation to grades wherever grading system is prevalent).
6.1.2 Obtained passing marks in National Eligibility Test (NET) or U.P. State Level Eligibility Test (SET) or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) as conducted by University Grants Commission (U.G.C.).
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"
The twin criteria specified as the eligibility, thus, was (a) the requirement of a 55 per cent score in a relevant subject at the Post Graduate Level or with a similar scoring in relation to grades wherever there is a grading system; and (b) passing marks in the National Eligibility Test (for short 'NET'), or U.P. State Level Eligibility Test (for short 'SET'), or State Level Eligibility Test (for short 'SLET') as conducted by UGC.
4. The controversy, which arose from the aforesaid was on two aspects: (a) would an M.Ed. Degree be treated as an equivalent degree to M.A. (Education) for the purposes of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor?, and (b) even if it was treated as an equivalent, could it be said that an M.Ed. is a post-graduation in the relevant subject?
5. In order to resolve the issues, respondent No. 2 constituted a four-member expert panel to render its opinion on the said subject. This panel consisted of four eminent persons: (i) Professor Bhoo Dev Singh, Professor and Dean of the Department of Education, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi; (b) Professor P.C. Shukla, Department of Education, Banaras Hindu University; (c) Professor Amita Bhajpayee, Department of Education, Lucknow University; and (d) Professor P.K. Sahu, Department of Education, Allahabad University.
6. The opinion of the four experts was unanimous and was received with their inputs. Thus, according to Professor Bhoo Dev Singh, the test conducted for the NET/JRF (Junior Research Fellowship) certificate is the same for both students with an M.A. (Education) and an M.Ed. Degree - with the test being conducted on the same day, at the same time, with the same syllabus, same items and the same paper. The co
