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

1983 Supreme(P&H) 528

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, S.C.Mital and S.S.Kang JJ.
Som Dutt
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 2231 of 1983,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 25, 1983

The employer-state has the authority to prescribe qualifications for posts and can insist on literal adherence to those qualifications, even if applicants possess unprescribed equivalent or higher academic qualifications.

Headnote:

QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT - PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE OR EMPLOYER-STATE - LITERAL ADHERENCE - UNPRESCRIBED EQUIVALENT OR HIGHER ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION - ELIGIBILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, possessing Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degrees, challenged the rejection of their applications for Junior Basic Teacher (J.B.T.) posts, which required a two-year J.B.T. Diploma from the Haryana Education Department. The petitioners argued that their B.Ed. degrees were higher qualifications and should be considered equivalent.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that where qualifications for a post are prescribed by a statute or the employer-state, the employer can insist on literal adherence to those qualifications, irrespective of unprescribed equivalent or higher academic qualifications possessed by applicants.

Issues: 1. Can the employer-state insist on literal adherence to prescribed qualifications for a post, even if applicants possess unprescribed equivalent or higher academic qualifications? 2. Is a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree a higher qualification than a two-year Junior Basic Teacher (J.B.T.) Diploma?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court reasoned that the employer-state is entitled to prescribe qualifications for posts based on the specific needs and requirements of those posts. 2. The court found that the B.Ed. degree and the J.B.T. Diploma are different qualifications tailored to different teaching levels and purposes, and thus, the B.Ed. degree cannot be considered a higher qualification for J.B.T. posts.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions, holding that the employer-state was justified in rejecting their applications for J.B.T. posts due to their lack of the prescribed J.B.T. Diploma.

Judgment

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Where the qualifications for a post are spelt out by a statute, or precisely prescribed by the employer-State. can it insist on literal adherence thereto irrespective of either an unprescribed equivalent or a higher academic qualification therefrom possessed by applicants seeking appointments to the said post ? This is the common core quest on in this set of five petitions referred for an authoritative decision by the Full Bench.

2. The matrix of somewhat similar facts may be taken from C. W. P. No. 2231 of 1983 (Som Datt v. State of Haryana). The petitioner therein had secured his M. A. degree from the Agra University and later had passed the Bachelor of Education Examination from the Kurukshetra University. In response to an advertisement made by respondent 2 Director of School Education, Haryana for 1679 posts of J. B. T. Teachers, he applied for appointment thereto. Admittedly, the prescribed qualifications for the said posts were as under :

"(i) Matric (Full) with English as one of the subjects.

(ii) Pass in two year J. B. T./Diploma in Education Training Course from the Haryana Education Department or equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Education Department."

The petitioner received a communication from respondent No. 2 that since he did not possess the minimum prescribed qualifications aforesaid for the post, his application was to be rejected, but if he has any grievance with regard thereto, he may appear before the Selection Committee. Consequently, the writ petitioner on July 30, 1982 appeared before the Selection Committee and claimed that he possessed higher qualifications than the prescribed qualifications and therefore, should be deemed to be eligible and could not be excluded from consideration. The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee but was later informed that his case could not be considered since he did not possess the minimum prescribed Qualification of two years. J. B. T. Diploma from the Haryana Education Department. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that though he did not literally possess the prescribed qualification of two-years J. B. T. Diploma, yet he had a degree in Bachelor of Education, and thus in fact higher qualifications than those prescribed, and his claim cannot be ignored in the eye of law.

3. The firm stand taken on behalf of the respondents is that the possession of allegedly higher qualifications of Bachelor of Education is of no significance because the courses of J. B. T. are different and of different duration and therefore, the possession of Bachelor of Education qualification would not render the petitioner eligible to be appointed against J. B. T. posts meant to teach the lower primary classes. It is the stand that possession of J. B. T. Diploma is a prerequisite for the post of such a teacher. It is particularised that the J. B. T. is a professional training which is done after passing Matric or Higher Secondary Examination and its duration is of two years and training is given for the teaching of primary classes whereas B. A., B. Ed. is a training of one years duration done after graduation and is general in nature. The syllabi for the J. B. T. Training is specially focussed on teaching the primary classes and tailored to the needs of small children. On the other hand, in B. Ed. training, the same is directed to teaching higher secondary classes and no specialised training for teaching children, is given. The J. B. T. training has provisions of teaching elementary psychology which is an important ingredient for primary school teachers, whereas in case of Bachelor of Education, there is no such provision. In sum, the firm stand is that it is for the respondent-State to insist on the particular qualifications prescribed and it is not obliged to consider persons supposedly of higher qualifications or even equivalent qualifications unless specially recognised as such already.

4. At the very motion stage after no































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