SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 588

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Budi Habung, J.
Miss Ishak Phassang and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of AP represented by the Chief Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 509 of 2025
Decided On : 18-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Modi, ld. Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. P. Pangu, ld. Govt. Adv. Ms. N. Anju, ld SC APPSC, Ms. T. Tagum, ld SC

Administrative errors, such as the inadvertent issuance of admit cards, cannot override statutory recruitment rules. Eligibility criteria prescribed by law must be strictly adhered to, and parity cannot be claimed based on previous appointments made in violation of such rules.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment Rules - Eligibility criteria - Post Graduate Teacher - Requirement of general degree in education - Whether specialized degree in education is equivalent - Held, administrative error in issuing admit cards does not confer vested right to participate in selection process contrary to statutory rules - Appointment contrary to rules cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality or seek parity. (Paras 10, 13, 15)

(B) Administrative Law - Eligibility - Administrative mistake cannot override statutory provisions - Authority reserves right to withhold candidature upon verification of qualifications - Clarification issued by department regarding non-equivalence of specialized degree is valid. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged a notification declaring candidates possessing specialized education degrees ineligible for teaching positions. The recruitment rules and advertisement explicitly prescribed a general education degree as an essential qualification. Despite this, admit cards were inadvertently issued to the petitioners. The department subsequently clarified that the specialized degree was not recognized as an alternative qualification for the posts in question.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria at the time of application. The issuance of admit cards was an administrative error that could not override the statutory recruitment rules. Furthermore, the court held that previous appointments made contrary to the rules could not be used to justify the current claim for eligibility.

Issues: Whether candidates possessing specialized education degrees are eligible for general teaching posts under existing recruitment rules, and whether the inadvertent issuance of admit cards creates a vested right to participate in the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory recruitment rules are binding and cannot be superseded by administrative errors or inadvertence. Specialized education qualifications are distinct from general education qualifications, and in the absence of equivalence, candidates lacking the prescribed general degree are ineligible.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning eligibility criteria for pgt recruitment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. parties' contentions regarding the enforceability of recruitment rules versus administrative errors. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. administrative mistakes cannot override statutory rules and b.ed special is not equivalent to general b.ed for general teaching roles. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. dismissal of the petition and vacation of interim relief. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

BUDI HABUNG, J.

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned Government Advocate for State respondent No. 1; Ms. N. Anju, learned Standing Counsel, APPSC, for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3; and Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, numbering 100, challenging the notification dated 28.10.2025 issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “APPSC”), whereby candidates possessing B.Ed. (Special)/B.Ed. (Special Education) were declared ineligible for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) under the Education Department.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 16.08.2025 inviting applications for filling up 111 posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) under the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the PGT Recruitment Rules, 2014, as well as the advertisement dated 16.08.2025, the prescribed educational qualification for the post of PGT was “Second Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized university with B.Ed.”

4. The petitioners possess a Second Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject along with B.Ed. (Special Education)/B.Ed. (Special). On the basis of the said qualifications, the petitioners submitted their applications, and admit cards were issued to them during the month of September, 2025.

5. Subsequently, the Public Service Commission, by letter dated 09.10.2025, wrote to the Commissioner, Education Department, seeking clarification as to whether candidates possessing B.Ed. (Special Education), B.Ed. (Special Education–Learning Disability), B.Ed. (Special Education – Hearing Impairment), and B.Ed. (Special) were eligible to apply for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT).

6. In response thereto, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by letter dated 15.10.2025, clarified that, as per the PGT Recruitment Rules, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) is a Second Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized university with B.Ed. Hence, candidates possessing any other qualification would not be considered eligible for the posts. It was further clarified that the NCTE Regulations, 2014, notified on 12.11.2024, have laid down the minimum academic and professional qualifications for recruitment of teachers at the secondary/higher secondary and senior secondary levels, and B.Ed. (Special Education) has not been recognized as an alternative teacher education qualification for teaching Classes IX to XII. Accordingly, only the general B.Ed. qualification is acceptable for the post in question.

7. Pursuant to the said clarification, the Commission issued the impugned notification dated 28.10.2025 clarifying that, other than candidates possessing a general B.Ed. degree, candidates possessing qualifications such as B.Ed. (Special Education), B.Ed. (Special), or any qualification other than a general B.Ed. would be treated as ineligible for the posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). It was further stated that if any candidate is found to possess B.Ed. (Special Education), B.Ed. (Special), or any other degree other than a general B.Ed. upon further verification, the Commission reserves the right to withhold their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top