SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ
Indresh Kumar Mishra and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2217-2218 of 2022
With
Amit Kumar Vishwakarma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2220 of 2022
With
Manish Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2219 of 2022
And
Ram Byas Pandey & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2221 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2022
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers in High School of State of Jharkhand for different subjects under different categories – For both posts namely Postgraduate Trained Teachers (History) and Graduate Trained Teachers (History/Civics), candidate must have Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in ‘History’ as a whole – Obtaining degree in one of branches of History cannot be said to be obtaining degree in History as a whole which was requirement – As a History teacher, he/she has to teach in all subjects of History, namely, Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. – In field of education, Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally – Whether or not a student/candidate is possessing requisite qualification should better be left to educational institutions, more particularly, when Expert Committee considers the matter – In present case, educational qualifications required has been specifically mentioned in advertisement – There is no ambiguity and/or confusion in advertisement providing educational qualification and post for which applications were invited (History/Civics) – There cannot be any deviation from educational qualifications mentioned in advertisement – Once having found that appellants were not having requisite qualification as per advertisement and thereafter their candidature was cancelled, both Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court have rightly refused to interfere with the same – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 6, 6.4, 6.5 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 796 of 2019 and 826 of 2019 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has confirmed the respective judgments and orders passed by Single Judge of the High Court dismissing writ petitions, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals. On the date of the verification of the testimonials, original writ petitioners submitted their certificates of Graduation degree. It was found that they were having the Graduate Degree in Ancient History; Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology and Medieval History etc. respectively from different universities and they failed to submit their Graduation degree in ‘History’ in terms of advertisement. Therefore, it was found that as the petitioners had Graduation degree in one of branches of the subject History in place of ‘History’ as a whole and therefore, they were not eligible for the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in the subjects of History and Civics as they cannot be said to be having the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement.
Findings of Court:
In online applications, it was stated by the respective petitioners that they are having Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and only at the time of verification of the documents, when the respective certificates were produced, at that time only, the authorities came to know that respective writ petitioners have the degrees in one branch of History and not in History as a whole and therefore the show-cause notices were issued so that the respective petitioners can clarify and satisfy that they are having the requisite qualification of Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and after giving them the opportunity, the decision has been taken and that too after obtaining the Expert Committee’s opinion.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 796 of 2019 and 826 of 2019 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has confirmed the respective judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals.
1.1 The present appeals are of two categories. Civil Appeal Nos. 2217-2218 of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 2219 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 2221 of 2022 are with respect to the writ petitioners, who applied for the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in the subject History and Civil Appeal No. 2220 of 2022 is with respect to the original writ petitioners, who applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject of History/Civics.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:-
Facts in respect of Postgraduate Trained Teachers
2.1 That the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 24.07.2017 forwarded requisition of the Department of School Education and Literacy (Secondary Education Directorate) Government of Jharkhand to the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “J.S.S.C.”) in terms of the Appointment Rules, 2012 for starting the selection process for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers in the High School of the State of Jharkhand for different subjects under different categories.
2.2 That the J.S.S.C. after receiving the request, started the selection process for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers (P.G.T.T.) in the State of Jharkhand in different subjects, i.e., Chemistry, Physics, History etc. Accordingly, advertisement No.10/2017 was issued by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates for considering their candidature for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers. It was a combined advertisement for the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers for different subjects under different categories. The advertisement provided the pay-scale and minimum educational qualification for the posts. That as per the advertisement, the eligibility criteria for the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers in the subject History was that a candidate must have obtained a Postgraduate degree with 50% marks in the related subjects (in the subject of History).
2.3 Pursuant to the advertisement, the respective original writ petitioners applied for the said posts and participated in the selection process. All of them submitted their application forms online and in their forms, they also mentioned their respective educational qualifications as Postgraduates in Hindi. They were allowed to appear in the examination, who were also declared successful on the basis of their performance in the examination. After publication of the result, successful candidates were required to get verification of their testimonials. At the time of verification of the testimonials, the respective original writ petitioners submitted their Postgraduate degree certificates. It was found that the respective original writ petitioners were having a Postgraduate degree in Medieval History; Ancient History; Ancient History and Culture; Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. respectively from different universities and as such they failed to submit the Postgraduate degree in History in terms of the advertisement. It was found that the respective petitioners had Postgraduate degrees in one of branches of History in place of History as a whole and, therefore, show-cause notices were issued to them by J.S.S.C. to show-cause why their candidatures may not be cancelled as they failed to submit the certificate of Master of Arts (Post-graduation) with the subject “History”.
2.4 At that stage, some of the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions befor
Appointment – In field of education, Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally – Whether or not a student/candidate is possessing requisite qualification should better be left to educational inst....
The main legal point established is that for the appointment of a teacher in a specific subject, a specialized degree in that subject, not a subsidiary one, is required as per the advertisement stipu....
The court established that specialized degrees can qualify for marks in teacher recruitment, emphasizing the need for a contextual interpretation of educational qualifications.
There is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisiti....
The UGC Regulation prevails over the advertisement, and the court emphasized the importance of expert opinions and deferred to the UGC's assessment of the appellant's eligibility.
Point of law: The word “equivalent” must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression “equivalent” one means that there are some degrees of flexibility of adjustment which do not lower the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of uniform eligibility conditions and the need for the Ministry of Higher Education, Govt. of India to review and amend the Recruitm....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.