Back
: BCA Degree Qualifies as Science Stream for Teacher Posts, UGC Clarification
A Division Bench of the has ruled that a Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) degree falls under the Science stream, holding that the 's (UGC) 2014 notification classifying BCA under Science was merely and operates retrospectively.
The Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad dismissed two filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging writ court orders that directed the appointment of candidates to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Physical Education. The court upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge, affirming that holders of BCA degrees cannot be denied appointment on the ground that their qualification does not fall within the Arts, Science, or Commerce streams.
The Dispute: A Question of Streams
The controversy traces back to the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination (CGTTCE-2016) conducted by the (JSSC). The advertisement prescribed that candidates for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Physical Education must possess a Bachelor's degree with minimum 45% marks (40% for SC/ST candidates) in Arts, Commerce, or Science, along with a recognised qualification in Physical Education.
Abhijeet Kumar Sinha , who obtained his BCA degree from in 2005, and Mukesh Ranjan , who held a BCA from , both qualified in the written examination. However, their candidature was rejected by the JSSC, which took the position that BCA did not constitute a degree in Arts, Science, or Commerce as mandated by the advertisement.
Both candidates challenged the rejection before the writ court. Mukesh Ranjan's case was initially dismissed but was remitted back by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 297 of 2022, which directed the writ court to consider the applicability of the UGC Gazette Notification dated . Upon rehearing, the writ court allowed both petitions and directed the State to appoint the candidates. During the pendency of contempt proceedings, joining letters were issued to both candidates — Mukesh Ranjan joined on and Abhijeet Kumar Sinha on — subject to the outcome of the appeals.
Arguments: vs.
The State of Jharkhand and the JSSC contended that the degree of BCA obtained by the candidates prior to 2014 was not structured as a traditional Bachelor's degree in Arts, Science, or Commerce. They argued that the UGC's 2009 Notification listed degrees alphabetically without categorising them stream-wise, and that the 2014 Notification, which placed BCA under Science, was
in nature. The State emphasised that the 2014 Notification contained a general instruction that
"all the changes in the nomenclature of the degree, as notified herewith will come into effect from the date of their notification."
The writ petitioners, on the other hand, pointed to the language of the 2014 Notification, which stated that
"the information is presented in a tabular form for clarity."
They argued that this demonstrated the notification was
in nature, not a substantive amendment, and therefore applied to degrees obtained even before its issuance. They also noted that both candidates had completed their 10+2 in the Science stream.
Court's Analysis: Clarification, Not Creation
The court framed the central question as whether a BCA degree falls under the Science stream. Examining both UGC notifications, the Bench observed that while the 2009 Notification recognised BCA as a specified degree under , it did not specify its stream. The 2014 Notification, however, explicitly placed Bachelor of Computer Applications under the Science stream at serial number 56.
The court placed significant emphasis on the phrase "for clarity" in the 2014 Notification, concluding that the UGC was clarifying the existing position rather than introducing a new classification. Relying on the settled principle from State of Bihar v. Ramesh Prasad Verma (2017) 5 SCC 665 and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Manu (2023) 19 SCC 30, the Bench held that or explanatory instruments generally operate retrospectively.
The court further rejected the State's contention that BCA fell outside all three recognised streams, noting that the State had failed to establish this position. It observed that since there are only three main streams — Science, Arts, and Commerce — and both candidates had completed their intermediate education in Science, their BCA degrees could not be excluded from the Science stream.
Key Observations
"The degree of BCA has been recognized by the UGC as under 2009 Notification and by 2014 Notification, the UGC has clarified that BCA comes under Science Stream."
"Any legislation or instrument having the force of law, which is or explanatory in nature and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an obvious omission in a statute, would generally be in operation."
"The information is presented in a tabular form for clarity. This itself suggests that nothing new has been added or deleted rather whatever mentioned in the tabular form is only for clarification."
"There is no other main stream other than Science, Arts or Commerce streams. The degree of the candidates may fall under either of these streams... But the State Government has failed to make out a case even on that ground."
The Verdict
The Division Bench concluded that the findings of the writ court were "founded upon sound reasoning" and warranted no interference. Both appeals were dismissed, and the court declined to pass any further directions since the candidates were already serving in their posts.
The judgment provides clarity on the status of BCA degrees for recruitment purposes and reinforces the principle that notifications by statutory bodies such as the UGC apply retrospectively. This ruling is significant for candidates across states who hold BCA degrees and have faced similar disqualification in teacher recruitment processes, as it affirms that their qualification qualifies as a Science degree for eligibility purposes. The court also noted the State's slow pace in deciding to file appeals, condoning delays of 251 and 229 days in the two matters, citing the impersonal nature of governmental decision-making as recognised by the in State of Manipur v. Koting Lamkang (2019) 10 SCC 408.
