The court emphasized the principle that decisions on prescribed qualifications should be left to the statutory authority or state government and that courts should not ordinarily interfere with the decisions of academic authorities in such matters.

( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single judge dated 27. 11. 2003, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellants had obtained a certificate of Prashikshan Praman Patra issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh as equivalent to Basic Teachers Certificate (B. T. C.) conducted by the State of Madhya Pradesh and on that post the petitioner-appellants had sought appointment by submitting their application to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in District Banda, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12. 8. 1996, wherein the requisite qualifications had been B. T. C. , S. T. C. , j. T. C. or T. C.

( 3 ) APPELLANTS case had been that the certificate possessed by them had not been recognised by the State of Utter Pradesh equivalent to the either of the said qualifications, thus, this Court should hold that both qualifications are equivalent and issue direction to the State Authorities to recognise the said qualifications equivalent to the requisite qualification for the post.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge after examining the record and affidavit filed by the parties recorded the finding of fact that certificate possessed by the petitioner-appellants had never been recognised by the State of U. P. and they were not eligible for the posts. More so, as by a specific order dated 11. 8. 1997, the criteria of granting and acknowledging other certificates obtained by the candidates from outside States which had been earlier equivalent to B. T. C. had been abrogated, they did not possess the requisite qualifications.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge also rejected the submission made on behalf of the appellants-petitioners that as they had obtained the certificate prior to the order dated 11. 8. 1997, and de-recognition cannot be with retrospective effect.

( 6 ) IT is settled legal proposition that qualifications must be currently prescribed as on the date of advertisement. This view stands fortified by the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Union of india and Ors. v. Yogendra Singh, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 226, wherein it has been observed as under "no candidate who does not possess the currently prescribed qualification and he possesses the qualification prescribed earlier, can be said to be qualified. . . . . . Every candidate, who aspires to fill any vacancy, must possess the educational qualification that are then prescribed. "

( 7 ) MORE so, what should a prescribed qualification for a particular post, is to be determined by the Statutory Authority/state Government taking a policy decision which should not be interfered lightly by the Courts, as the decision is taken by the Expert Committee, unless there are compelling circumstances to do so or malice is proved.

( 8 ) A Constitution Bench of Honble Apex Court in University of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao and Anr. , AIR 1965 SC 491, examined the issue and observed as under : "boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following them, are challenged before the Courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. . . . . . . . . . It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. "

( 9 ) IN State of Bihar v. A. K. Mukherjee, AIR 1975 SC 192, while dealing with a similar issue, the Apex Court held that opinions of the expert on the basis of the State takes a decision "cannot be espied with a suspicious eyes by the Court. Government ways may not be familiar for forensic processes but for that reason, they cannot be suspected. "

( 10 ) IN Chancellor and Anr. v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar and Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 579, the Honb