Point of Law: 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 acquisition of lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In the present case, there being no such Rule, we are afraid that the presumption is not available to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Court has heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Seemant Singh for the petitioners, Sri Avneesh Tripathi who has addressed submissions on behalf of the Commission and Sri Piyush Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. All the petitioners had participated in a selection process initiated by the respondents for appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in English. It is their case that they were initially permitted by the respondents to participate in the recruitment exercise. According to the petitioners, at the stage of document verification the testimonials submitted by them online were not accepted by the respondents and they all received error messages of either having entered an invalid roll number or password. Upon enquiries being made they were apprised that all of them were found to be ineligible since they did not possess the essential qualification as stipulated in the advertisement. The advertisement required all applicants applying for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in English to hold a Graduate degree in “English Literature” conferred by a University duly established by law or such other degree which may have been recognized by the State as being equivalent thereto. It is the conceded position that none of the petitioners hold a Graduate degree in English Literature nor did they pursue a course of study in that subject at the graduation stage. Their challenge to the exclusion of their candidature rests on the Master’s degree conferred on them at which stage they did have English Literature as the primary subject. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that it is contended that the petitioners who hold a superior or advanced degree in the subject of English Literature have been wrongly denied the right to seek appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in English.

3. Assailing the decision of the respondents Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel, has contended that since all of the petitioners have obtained their Master’s degree in English Literature, a degree which is liable to be recognized as superior or at least a qualification higher to that of a Bachelor’s degree in the same subject, they must be recognized as fulfilling the essential requirement as placed in the advertisement. Sri Khare has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir And Others, 2016 (1) ESC 54 (SC), Jyoti K.K. And Others Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others, (2010) 15 SCC 596 as also its decision in State of Uttarakhand And Others Vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and Another, (2013) 15 SCC 557 in support of his submission that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the candidate fulfilling the requirement of possessing a lower qualification and in any case evidences the candidates’ eligibility for appointment. Sri Khare submits that a higher qualification can never be viewed as a disqualification for appointment especially in a case where such higher qualification has not been specifically excluded.

4. It becomes pertinent to note that two major hurdles stood in the way of acceptance of the aforesaid submissions. The attention of the learned Senior Counsel was invited to the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Court in Deepak Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ -A No. 24273 of 2018, decided on 23 July 2019 as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in Asheesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others, Writ -A No. 6083 of 2020 decided on 11 November 2020. Both in Deepak Singh and Asheesh Kumar, the Court was called upon to deal with an identical submission of a higher qualification being viewed as sufficient evidence of eligibility of candidates. Sri Khare sought to distinguish the judgment of the Full Bench in Deepak Singh by contending that the principal issue which fell for consideration of the Full Bench was the claim of eligibility as raised by candi