Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 13702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Mohammad Anees – Appellant
Versus
National Education Society For Tribal Students – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11316/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saaket Jain, Shivangi Anand, Ankur Singhal, Sarthak Kumar Meena
For the Respondents: Somesh Chandra Jha, Anand K Singh, Reavthy Raghavan, Vanshika Verma
Regulatory authorities may validate the simultaneous pursuit of dual academic programs. Where such clarifications exist, employers must evaluate candidate eligibility based on these standards rather than applying restrictive policies that ignore the validity of qualifications acquired under previous, permissible regulatory norms.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Public Employment - Cancellation of candidature - Principles of natural justice and procedural fairness - Criteria for eligibility in competitive recruitment.
(B) Academic Qualifications - Simultaneous pursuit of two degree programs - Recognition of degrees obtained through regular and distance learning modes - Clarification by regulatory authority regarding retrospective validity of qualifications. (Paras 21-25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were selected for teaching positions after undergoing a formal recruitment process. Their candidatures were cancelled by the employer on the ground that they had obtained two academic qualifications simultaneously, which the employer viewed as impermissible and a violation of recruitment norms.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the academic regulatory authority had issued clarifications confirming that dual academic programs pursued simultaneously prior to the enactment of current guidelines are to be considered valid, provided they adhered to then-extant norms and statutes. The court held that this regulatory position must be taken into account by the employer to ensure fair and accurate evaluation of the candidates' eligibility.
Issues: Whether the simultaneous pursuit of two degrees, specifically one in regular mode and one through distance learning, renders a candidate ineligible for public employment, and whether such disqualification is consistent with prevailing regulatory policies regarding academic qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a regulatory authority provides specific clarification that dual academic qualifications obtained prior to current policy frameworks are legitimate, the employer is legally obligated to consider such clarifications. Consequently, a previous rejection based on the assumption of impermissibility must be reviewed in light of these updated standards to uphold fairness and prevent arbitrary exclusion of candidates.
Result: The petition is disposed of with a direction to the employer to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners and pass a reasoned, speaking order within six weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural disposal of interlocutory applications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. challenge against cancellation of employment candidature due to simultaneous degree pursuit (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioners' contention on legality of dual qualifications (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. employer's discretionary right to exclude non-standard qualifications (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. judicial assessment of ugc guidelines on dual degrees (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. retrospective validity of simultaneous degrees directed for reconsideration (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CM APPL. 46877/2024 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 28190/2026 (Permission to place on record reply filed by respondent no. 3 in a similar matter [W.P. (C) No. 12244 of 2025])
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
4. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11316/2024, CM APPL. 46876/2024
5. This petition has been filed by four persons, primarily against the respondent No. 1- National Education Society for Tribal Students, seeking the following reliefs:-
“A. Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned emails dated 19.06.2024 vide which candidature of the Petitioners for EMRS Recruitment has been arbitrarily cancelled.
B. Writ of Certiorari quashing/modifying any list of candidates for the purpose of joining to an extent that it does not contain the Name/Roll No. of the Petitioners.
C. Declare the Para 5 of UGC Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously 2022 and any clause of the subsequent circular to that effect wherein it has been said that No retrospective benefit can be claimed by the students who have already done two academic programmes simultaneously prior to the notification of these guidelines as unconstitutional as it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
D. Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to treat the Petitioners as successful candidates in view of valid degrees submitted by them and further issue them joining letters for the post of PGT under EMRS.
E. Any other Order this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, ex aqueo at bono.”
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners herein are successful candidates in Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS) Recruitment, 2023, and have been selected as Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs). Petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.2 have been selected for the post of PGT (Hindi); petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 4 have been selected for the post of PGT (English) and PGT (Economics) respectively. According to him, despite being successful in all stages of the recruitment process, their documents having been duly verified by the concerned authorities, and having been issued provisional appointment letters, the respondent no. 1 had issued communications dated 19.06.2024 stating that on scrutiny of the documents, it was observed that the petitioners have pursued two degrees- Master of Arts (M.A.) and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) during the same period, which is not allowed as per the norms, making them ineligible for the posts they have applied and resulting in cancellation of their candidatures.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily is that the cancellation of the candidatures of the petitioners is for the reason that the petitioners have undertaken M.A. as well as B.Ed. courses simultaneously. In other words, they have pursued two different qualifications simultaneously, which according to the respondent No. 1 is impermissible. He stated that this stand is totally erroneous as pursuing two courses simultaneously has been always allowed by the respondent no. 3- University Grants Commission (UGC). According to him, there is nothing on record to indicate that the UGC has expressly barred students from pursuing two courses/degrees simultaneously. In fact, he r
