Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. vs Ms. Manu And Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 10 July 2026
Pronounced on: 15 July 2026
+ W.P.(C) 2818/2024
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC
GNCTD (Services) with Mr. Nitesh Kumar
Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advs.
versus
MANU AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Ms.
Hatneimawi, Mr. Suyash Swarup, Mr.
Ananyay Bhardwaj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT
% 15.07.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The issue in controversy in this writ petition cannot be said to
be res integra . It involves the question of whether a candidate, who
does not possess the prescribed qualifications for recruitment to a
post, can be treated as eligible because she, or he, possesses a “higher”
qualification.
2. As this is the limited issue which arises for consideration, no
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 1 of 40
detailed allusion to facts is necessary, and a brief recital would suffice.
1
3. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board issued
Advertisement Notice No. 04/17 dated 20 December 2017, inviting
applications for appointment to the post of Domestic Science Teacher
(TGT). The respondents applied against Post Code 92/17. They
succeeded in the selection and offers of appointment were issued to
them. Subsequently, however, these offers were revoked on 12 March
2020 on the ground that the respondents did not possess the prescribed
2
qualifications as per the applicable Recruitment Rules . The essential
and desirable educational qualifications prescribed for the post of
Domestic Science Teacher under Post Code 92/17 read thus:
“Educational Qualification:-
Essential:- 1. Bachelor's Degree in Domestic
science/Home Science from a recognized
university/institute.
2. Bachelor's in Education with Domestic
Science/Home Science as a teaching subject.
Desirable:- 1. Must have passed Hindi as a subject at
Secondary Level.”
4. The respondents possess BA (Pass) degrees and hold Master’s
Degrees in Domestic Science/Home Science. The question for
consideration is whether this would satisfy the requirement of a
“Bachelor’s degree in Domestic Science/Home Science from a
recognised University/Institution”.
1
“DSSSB”, hereinafter
2
“RRs”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 2 of 40
5. The respondents’ contention is, fundamentally, that a Master’s
Degree is a higher qualification than a Bachelor’s degree and that,
therefore, even if they do not possess a Bachelor’s degree specifically
in the discipline of Domestic Science/Home Science, they are
nonetheless eligible to apply under the advertisement against Post
Code 92/17.
6. Additionally, it is sought to be contended that, as Domestic
Science/Home Science was a subject which was taught to the
respondents in all three years of their BA (Pass) course, they can, on
that basis, be treated as possessing a “Bachelor’s degree” in Domestic
Science/Home Science.
7. Aggrieved by the revocation of their offers of appointment, the
3
respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way
of OA 1005/2020.
8. By judgment dated 19 May 2023, the Tribunal has allowed the
4
OA and has directed the GNCTD to treat the respondents as eligible
for the post of Domestic Science Teacher (TGT) and offer them
appointment if they satisfy other eligibility conditions and are suitable
for the post.
9. In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal has placed reliance on
3
“the Tribunal”, hereinafter
4
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 3 of 40
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Srishti v. Govt. of
5
NCT of Delhi .
10. Aggrieved thereby, the GNCTD and the DSSSB have
approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
11. We have heard Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for
the petitioners and Ms. Kajal Chandra, learned Counsel for the
respondents at length.
12. Mr. Singh submits that neither of the contentions advanced by
the respondents to profess their eligibility for recruitment as Domestic
Science Teacher has substance. He submits that a Bachelor’s Degree
in Domestic Science cannot be equated with a BA (Pass) degree and
that what is required is a degree in the discipline of Domestic
Science/Home Science. A mere BA (Pass) degree in which Domestic
Science/Home Science forms one of the subjects of study, even if in
all the years of the course, cannot qualify as a Bachelor’s degree in
Domestic Science/Home Science.
13. Mr. Singh further submits that the possession of a higher
qualification does not result ipso facto in satisfaction of the
requirement of a Bachelor’s Degree in Domestic Science/Home
Science. He relies on para 25 of the judgment of the Supreme Court
6
in Zahoor Ahmed Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad , which reads
5
2017 SCC OnLine Del 8620
6
(2019) 2 SCC 404
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 4 of 40
thus:
“25. The decision in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
7
Commission has been considered in a judgment of two learned
8
Judges in State of Punjab v. Anita . In that case, applications were
invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under the rules, the
prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a
two years' course in JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and
Hindi of the Matriculation standard or its equivalent . This Court
held that none of the respondents held the prescribed qualification
and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be treated as a “higher
qualification”. Adverting to the decision in Jyoti K.K ., this Court
noted that Rule 10(a)(ii) in that case clearly stipulated that the
possession of a higher qualification can presuppose the acquisition
of a lower qualification prescribed for the post. In the absence of
such a stipulation, it was held that such a hypothesis could not be
deduced :
“15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the
aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents
possess higher qualifications, then the qualification of
JBT/ETT, they should be treated as having fulfilled the
qualification stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers.
It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission
of the learned counsel for the private respondents,
because the statutory rules which were taken into
consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid
observations in Jyoti K.K. , permitted the aforesaid course.
The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned
counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder:
‘6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in
these Rules or in the Special Rules, the
qualifications recognised by executive orders or
Standing Orders of Government as equivalent to a
qualification specified for a post in the Special
Rules and such of those higher qualifications which
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification
prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the
post.’
(emphasis supplied)
7
(2010) 15 SCC 596
8
(2015) 2 SCC 170
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 5 of 40
A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of
higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the
lower qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the
present controversy is concerned, there is no similar
statutory provision authorising the appointment of persons
with higher qualifications.”
14. He further relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this
9
Court in GNCTD v. Seema Kumari .
15. Responding to the submission of Mr. Singh, Ms. Kajal Chandra
submits that, except the Lady Irwin College in Delhi, of which she
herself claims to be an alumnus – and a distinguished one, if we may
say so – no educational institution in India confers a Bachelor’s degree
in Home Sciences/Domestic Sciences. It is only a Bachelor’s degree
which is issued, without any specified specialization.
16. In any case, she submits that as holders of Master’s degrees in
Domestic Science, the respondents could not very well be treated as
ineligible for a post which require only a Bachelor’s degree. She
submits that this issue is squarely covered by a judgment of the
10
Division Bench of this Court in GNCTD v. Monika Sharma , from
which she cites paras 3 to 6, 20 and 21, which read thus :
“3. The controversy which emanates for consideration is
whether Ms. Monika Sharma meets the eligibility or essential
qualification of a degree/diploma in Training/Education. The
eligibility criteria prescribed in Advertisement No. 2/2010 and as
per the Recruitment Rules, reads:-
9
2023 SCC OnLine Del 4987
10
2016 SCC Online Del 3694
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 6 of 40
“Essential Qualifications: for PGT (excluding
Engineering Drawing/Music/Home Science):
1. Master's Degree (or its equivalent Oriental
Degree in the case of PGT Sanskrit/Hind) in the
subject concerned from any recognized University.
2. Degree/Diploma in Training/Education
Qualifications mentioned at S. No. 2 above relaxable
in case of candidates:
(i) having obtained Ph.D Degree in the subject
concerned from a recognized
University/Institution; or
(ii) having obtained First Division in Higher
Secondary. Degree and Post Graduate
Examination with the mandatory condition that
the candidate will acquire the B.Ed./B.T.
qualification within a period not exceeding three
years from the date of his joining the service.”
3. Desirable: 3 years experience of teaching in
a College/Higher Secondary School/High School in
the subject concerned.”
4. As per the aforesaid, the essential qualifications were (i) a
post-graduate degree in the subject concerned from a recognized
university and (ii) a degree/diploma in training/education.
Qualification No. (ii) was relaxable where the candidate had a Phd.
Degree in the subject concerned from a recognized
university/institution or had obtained a first division in the higher
secondary, Graduation and Post Graduate examinations. In such
cases, the candidates were required to obtain B.Ed. or B.T.
qualification within a period of three years from the date of joining
service.
5. The respondent has a degree of Bachelor of Elementary
Education (B.EL.Ed.) from the University of Delhi. She also holds
a Masters degree in Education (M.Ed.) and is Master of Arts in
Sociology. She was selected, but denied appointment on the
ground, that she did not have a B.Ed. or B.T. degree. The B.EL.Ed.
degree was not considered equivalent to a B.Ed. or B.T.
6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has observed that the
authorities had failed to examine the question of equivalence of
B.EL.Ed., B.Ed & B.T. degrees, by comparing the subjects studied
or syllabi. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and the
Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 1520/2012, Government of NCT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 7 of 40
11
of Delhi v. Sachin Gupta . As the respondent had an M.Ed
degree, she could not have been disqualified on the ground that she
did not have a B.Ed. degree. The respondent had a higher
qualification than what was prescribed. She was qualified and
eligible for being appointed to the post of Post Graduate Teacher
(Sociology).
20. The aforesaid factual position, and education qualifications
of the respondent are accepted. We are satisfied that the Tribunal
was justified in negating the stand of the petitioner and holding that
the respondent Monika Sharma was eligible. She has secured rank
No. 17 in the selection list after tier one and tier two examinations.
21. In Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission , the
Supreme Court observed that if a person had acquired higher
qualifications, such qualifications would pre-suppose acquisition of
the lower qualification. A degree holder would be eligible to apply
for a post, where the minimum qualification prescribed was
diploma holder. When the position was not clear and the rules did
not per se disqualify holders of the higher qualifications, it would
be appropriate to hold that those with the higher qualifications
would be eligible. In Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of
12
Rajasthan , the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High
Court observing that the expression ‘equivalent’ must be given a
reasonable meaning. Usage of the expression ‘equivalent’ means
that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do
not lower the stated requirement. Equivalent does not mean exact.
In this case, the candidate was declared ineligible for appointment
as a teacher for primary and upper primary schools because she had
not passed the Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination,
the basic qualification for the post in question. She was considered
eligible as she had cleared higher examinations. Recently, the
Supreme Court in CWP No. 13368/2015, Parvaiz Ahmad
th
Parry v. State of Jammu & Kashmir decided on 6 November,
2015 has held that while the minimum qualification prescribed for
the post of J&K Forest Service Range Officers Grade-I (Forest)
was a B.Sc (Forestry) or an equivalent degree from any University
recognized by the ICAR, a candidate with a higher qualification
was equally eligible. Thus a B.Sc candidate with Forestry as a
major subject and M.Sc. in Forestry was eligible. It was observed:-
“25. In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry
as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in
the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc. (Forestry) then in the absence of
11
2013 SCC OnLine Del 3045
12
(2012) 3 SCC 129
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 8 of 40
any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing
such higher qualification has to be held to possess the
required qualification to apply for the post. In fact,
acquiring higher qualification in the prescribed subject i.e.
Forestry was sufficient to hold that the appellant had
possessed the prescribed qualification. It was coupled with
the fact that Forestry was one of the appellant's major
subjects in graduation, due to which he was able to do his
Masters in Forestry.”
17. Ms. Chandra further cites paras 10.2, 13, 14 and 15 of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of J
13
& K .
Analysis
18. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both
sides and addressed ourselves to the issues in controversy.
19. We may straightaway hold, at the outset, that the mere fact that
the respondents may have studied Domestic Science/Home Science as
one of the subjects in their BA (Pass) courses cannot suffice to equate
their BA (Pass) degrees with a Bachelor’s degree in Domestic
Science/Home Science. We are sanguine that a Bachelor’s degree in
Domestic Science/Home Science is, in a sense, equivalent to an
Honours Degree in that particular discipline.
20. Even if Domestic Science/Home Science were to be taught in
all the years of a BA (Pass) course, it is a matter of common
knowledge that the extent and intensity with which the subject would
13
(2015) 17 SCC 709
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 9 of 40
be taught to a student who is pursuing a dedicated degree course in
Domestic Science/Home Science is qualitatively different from that
with which the subject would be taught to a BA (Pass) student.
21. Viewed any which way, the qualification has to be in that
discipline. A BA (Pass) qualification would not suffice.
22. Which takes us to the main bone of contention, which is
whether the Master’s degree in Domestic Science, by the respondents,
would qualify them in terms of the qualifications prescribed in the
advertisement. The respondents’ contention is that, as a Master’s
degree in Domestic Science is a higher qualification, when compared
to a Bachelor’s Degree in Domestic Science, the possession of the
former would suffice to satisfy the requirement of the possession of
the latter.
23. When we travel through the judgments of the Supreme Court on
the issue of whether the possession of a qualification higher than that
prescribed, in the absence of the actual prescribed qualification, would
entitle a candidate for consideration for selection against the post
concerned, we find an interesting trajectory of opinions. Also, all
decisions are rendered by Benches of two Hon’ble judges of the
Supreme Court.
24. We proceed, therefore, to undertake a chronological
precedential excursion.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 10 of 40
14
25. P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala
25.1 The Supreme Court was concerned, here, with recruitment to
the post of lower primary/upper primary teachers in government
schools in Kerala. The prescribed educational qualification, as
contained in the advertisement, read thus:
“(1) Pass in SSLC conducted by the Commissioner for
Government Examinations, Kerala, or any other equivalent
qualification.
(2) Pass in TTC conducted by the Commissioner for
Government Examinations, Kerala, or pass in pre-degree of Kerala
University with Pedagogy as optional subject or pass in basic TTC
examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Government of
Madras or pass in Malayalam Vidhvan Examination.”
The appellants before the Supreme Court contended that the B. Ed.
15
qualification held by them was higher than TTC and that, therefore,
they were eligible for recruitment. The Supreme Court held thus:
“10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by
the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification
than TTC and therefore, the BEd candidates should be held to be
eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of the appellants, it is
pointed out before us that Trained Teacher's Certificate is given to
teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes
whereas for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students
of classes above primary. BEd degree-holders, therefore, cannot
necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for
appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a
particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the
candidates with TTC qualification or BEd qualification, is a matter
of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in
the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers
as only TTC and not BEd . Whether BEd qualification can also be
prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by
the authorities concerned but we cannot consider BEd candidates,
14
(2003) 3 SCC 541
15
Trained Teachers Certificate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 11 of 40
for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible.”
25.2 In this decision, the Supreme Court did not really examine the
implication of possession, by a candidate, of a qualification higher
than that prescribed, as the judgment held that it could not be said that
the B. Ed. qualification held by the appellants was higher than the
TTC qualification which they were required to process. It was
specifically noted that the TTC was issued to teachers specially
trained to teach small children in primary classes, whereas, for
obtaining the B. Ed. degree, the training imparted was for teaching
students of classes above primary.
26. Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission
26.1 This case dealt with recruitment of Sub-Engineers (Electrical)
in the Kerala State Electricity Board, for which the prescribed
qualification read:
“1. SSLC or its equivalent.
2. Technical qualifications –
(a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognised
institution after three years' course of study,
Or
(b) a certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one
of the recognised technical schools shown below with five
years' service under the Kerala State Electricity Board,
[Not fully extracted as not relevant]
Or
(c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher)
with five years' experience as IInd Grade Overseer
(Electrical) under the Board.”
26.2 Here, again, the appellants before the Supreme Court held B.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 12 of 40
Tech. degrees in Electrical Engineering which, they contended, were
higher than the Diploma qualification in Electrical Engineering
stipulated in the Notification. Additionally, the appellants placed
reliance on Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services
16
Rules, 1956 , which read:
“10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules
or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive
orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a
qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of
those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the
lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient
for the post .”
26.3 The Supreme Court held thus:
“7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a
qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same
cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different
qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in
stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for
that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that
such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall
also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher
qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can
certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be
necessary to seek far.
8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant
Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or
other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has
been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has
to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously
gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher
qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely,
the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the
qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the
acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject
16
"the 1956 Rules" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 13 of 40
prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that
post .
9. In the event the Government is of the view that only
diploma-holders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineers but
not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this Rule
should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher
qualifications or the position should have been made clear that
degree-holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When
that position is not clear but on the other hand the Rules do not
disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same
Faculty, it becomes clear that the Rule could be understood in an
appropriate manner as stated above . In that view of the matter the
order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not
concerned with the question whether all those who possess such
qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory Rules
have been published and those Rules are applicable, it presupposes
that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of
such Rules or make himself aware of the Rules before making
appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified
in holding that recruitment of the appellants would amount to fraud
on the public.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26.4 The reasoning of the Supreme Court in this judgment may be
split into the following elements:
(i) The judgment has clearly been returned in the context of
Rule 10(a)(ii) of the 1956 Rules.
(ii) The Supreme Court accepted, in the first instance, the
view of the High Court that, in order for Rule 10(a)(ii) to apply,
the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post.
(iii) Thereafter, the Supreme Court accepted the appellants’
contention that the B. Tech. Qualification possessed by them
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 14 of 40
entitled them to the benefit of Rule 10(a)(ii), vis-à-vis the
Diploma qualification required under the Notification, on two
grounds:
(a) The Supreme Court first held that, if the higher
qualification is obtained in the same Faculty, the
qualification “can certainly be stated to presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the
post”.
(b) The second consideration which weighed with the
Supreme Court was that a degree in Electrical
Engineering was the prescribed qualification for
recruitment to the close of Assistant Engineer, which was
higher than the post of Sub-Engineer, to which the
appellants aspired. A qualification prescribed for
recruitment to a higher post could, according to the
Supreme Court, be certainly regarded as higher than the
qualification prescribed for recruitment to the lower post.
Reasoning thus, the Supreme Court held that the
qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering was
higher than the qualification of Diploma in Electrical
Engineering and presupposed acquisition of the latter
qualification.
(iv) The manner in which the High Court had understood
Rule 10(a)(ii), and its applicability in the facts of the case, was
also found to be acceptable as there was no exclusion of degree
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 15 of 40
holders from consideration for the post of Sub-Engineer.
27 State of Punjab v. Anita
27.1 This case involved appointment to posts of JBT/ETT teachers
in a school. The qualifications and experience prescribed read as
under:
“(i) Matric with two years’ course in JBT training; and
(ii) Knowledge of Punjab and Hindi language of matriculation
standard or its equivalent.”
27.2 The respondents before the Supreme Court were holders of
degrees such as MA, M. Sc., M. Com and the like which, they
contended, were higher than the prescribed qualification for
recruitment as JBT teacher and, that, therefore, they were eligible for
appointment to the post. The Supreme Court, at the outset, took stock
of Rule 6 of the Punjab Privately Recognised Schools Employees
(Security of Service) Rules, 1981, which mandated procession of the
qualifications and experience specified against a post to entitle a
person to be appointed to that course. The Supreme Court noted that,
undisputedly, none of the respondents possessed the qualifications
stipulated for appointment as JBT teacher. The Supreme Court
thereafter relied on the judgment in P.M. Latha and Yogesh Kumar v.
17
Govt (NCT of Delhi) , both of which rejected the argument that the
B. Ed. qualification prescribed by the candidate was higher than the
prescribed TTC requirement and, therefore, entitled the candidates to
17
(2003) 3 SCC 548
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 16 of 40
recruitment. Following these judgments, the Supreme Court held:
“13. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments leave no room for any
doubt that it is imperative for the candidates to possess the
statutory qualification prescribed for appointment to the posts, to
which they are seeking appointment. In view of the position
declared by this Court, qualifications of BEd and other
qualifications possessed by the private respondents, namely, MA,
MSc, MCom, etc. cannot be treated as higher qualifications with
reference to the prescribed qualifications (JBT/ETT). We,
therefore, find the reasons recorded by the DEO in the impugned
order dated 4-4-2005 were fully justified, and in consonance with
the legal position declared by this Court, as has been noticed
hereinabove.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27.3 The Supreme Court thereafter referred to the judgment in Jyoti
K.K . distinguishing the said case from the facts before it, the Supreme
Court observed that the decision in Jyoti was rendered the context of
Rule 10(a)(ii) of the 1956 Rules, and that there were no similar rules
applicable in the facts before it.
27.4 The Supreme Court, therefore, reversed the judgment of the
High Court, which had held the respondents to be qualified for
recruitment as JBT/ETT teachers.
28 None of these cases, therefore, examined, in principle, whether
the possession of a higher qualification, absent the prescribed
qualification, would suffice to entitle a candidate for consideration for
recruitment to the post in question. Though Jyoti addressed the issue,
it was in the context of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the 1956 Rules and, therefore,
the applicability of the said decision in a case where such a rule was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 17 of 40
not available may be questionable, as held in Anita .
29 Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of J & K
29.1 This is a decision of considerable importance, given the factual
matrix of the case before us.
29.2 The appellant before the Supreme Court in this case was the
holder of a B.Sc Degree in which Forestry was one of the main
subjects. He, thereafter, also acquired an M.Sc (Forestry) degree from
the same University. He further passed the National Eligibility Test in
Forestry from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
29.3 The Jammu and Kashmir Forest Service (Gazetted)
18
Recruitment Rules, 1970 prescribed, for recruitment to the post of
Range Officer, the qualification of “B.Sc (Forestry) or its equivalent
from any university recognised by the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research”. The appellant was declared ineligible for recruitment as
Range Officer for want of processing the prescribed qualifications,
against which he petitioned the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and,
thereafter, a Division Bench rejected the appeal preferred thereagainst.
The appellant, therefore, appealed to the Supreme Court.
29.4 The contention of the appellant before the Supreme Court, with
which we are concerned, was that as Forestry was one of the subjects
taught in all years of the B.Sc course which the appellant had
18
"the 1970 Rules" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 18 of 40
undertaken, and as the appellant possessed, additionally, the higher
qualification of M.Sc (Forestry), he could not be regarded as ineligible
for recruitment as Range Officer.
29.5 The Supreme Court held in favour of the appellant, reasoning
thus:
“13. As would be clear from the undisputed facts mentioned
above, the minimum qualification prescribed for applying to the
post of Jammu and Kashmir Forest Service Range Officers Grade I
was “ BSc (Forestry) or equivalent from any university recognised
by ICAR ”. It is not disputed that the appellant had to his credit a
qualification of BSc with Forestry as one of the major subjects and
Masters in Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry), on the date when he
applied for the post in question, which satisfied the eligibility
criteria so far as the qualification was concerned.
14. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court that
in order to be an eligible candidate, the appellant should have done
BSc in Forestry and since he had not done so, he was not
considered as an eligible candidate. This reasoning, in our view,
does not stand to any logic and is, therefore, not acceptable insofar
as the facts of this case are concerned.
15. In our considered view, firstly, if there was any ambiguity
or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the
advertisement, then it should have been clarified by the authority
concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not
clarified, then benefit should have been given to the candidate
rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that there
was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet we find that the
appellant was admittedly having BSc degree with Forestry as one
of the major subjects in his graduation and further he was also
having Master's degree in Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry). In the light
of these facts, we are of the view that the appellant was possessed
of the prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and
his application could not have been rejected treating him to be an
ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed qualification.
16. In our view, if a candidate has done BSc in Forestry as one
of the major subjects and has also done Masters in Forestry i.e.
MSc (Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such
issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be
held to possess the required qualification to apply for the post. In
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 19 of 40
fact, acquiring higher qualification in the prescribed subject
i.e. Forestry was sufficient to hold that the appellant had
possessed the prescribed qualification . It was coupled with the
fact that Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects in
graduation, due to which he was able to do his Masters in
Forestry.”
(Italics in original; remaining emphasis supplied)
29.6 The Supreme Court has, therefore, in this judgment, held that,
where the prescribed educational qualification is B.Sc (Forestry), a
candidate who was holding a B.Sc degree in which Forestry was one
of the main subjects, and was additionally holding the higher
qualification of M.Sc, would ipso facto be eligible for recruitment to
the post . In fact, holds the Supreme Court, the fact that Forestry was
one of the main subjects in the B.Sc course undertaken by the
candidate was only an additional consideration, and that the very
possession, by the candidate, of the higher M.Sc degree in Forestry
was by itself sufficient to hold him to be eligible for the post.
30 Zahoor Ahmad Rather
30.1 Proceeding, next, to Zahoor Ahmad Rather , which was cited
before us, the Supreme Court was concerned, in that case with
recruitment to the post of Technician III. The prescribed essential
19
qualification was matriculation with ITI in the relevant grade. Note
12 in the advertisement additionally read thus:
“12. The prescribed qualifications reflect the bare minimum
requirement of the job and mere possession thereof shall not entitle
19
Indian Training Institute
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 20 of 40
a candidate to be called for written test/interview and also grant
weightage to the higher qualification in relevant line/discipline as
may be decided by the Board.”
30.2 The appellants possessed diplomas in electrical engineering and
electronics and communications but did not have an ITI qualification.
Their candidature was rejected on the ground that they did not possess
the ITI qualification.
30.3 They approached the High Court. The learned Single Judge
ruled in favour of the appellants, reasoning that as a Diploma in
electrical engineering entitled candidates to be recruited as Junior
Engineer, which was a post higher than that of Technician III, the
holding of the Diploma in Electrical Engineering pre-supposed
satisfaction of the qualification of matriculation with ITI.
30.4 This decision was reversed by the Division Bench, which noted
that ITI was a mandatory qualification and that the appellants did not
possess ITI. Reliance was also placed, by the Division Bench, on
Note 12 in the advertisement, which entitled the State Services
20
Selection Board from providing weightage for any higher
qualification which a candidate may possess. No such weightage
having been provided for the qualification of Diploma, the Division
Bench held that possessing of a Diploma did not ipso facto entitle the
candidate to treat herself or himself as eligible for appointment.
30.5 The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
20
“SSSB” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 21 of 40
30.6 The Supreme Court reasserted and expressed its agreement with
the earlier decisions in Jyoti and Anita . However, it held that the
decision in Jyoti would not apply in the absence of a provision like
Rule 10(a)(iii) of the 1956 Rules, which was applicable in the case of
Jyoti . Holding that equivalence between qualifications could not be
determined by a Court, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
Division Bench.
30.7 The Supreme Court specifically held, in para 28 of the
judgment, that a person who did not possess an ITI with matriculation
was ipso facto not eligible, and endorsed the view of the Division
Bench that, while Note 12 in the advertisement empowered the SSSB
to provide additional weightage for higher qualifications, no such
weightage had been provided for Diploma holders.
30.8 Ergo, held the Supreme Court, a Diploma holder, who did not
have a matriculation with ITI, was not entitled to be appointed as
Technician III.
21
31 Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
31.1 Though this decision did not particularly address the issue in
controversy, for the sake of completeness, it would be appropriate to
refer to it.
21
(2021) 16 SCC 340
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 22 of 40
31.2 The Supreme Court, in para 2 of the report in Puneet Sharma ,
identified the issue arising before it for consideration as “whether a
degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics
Engineering is technically a higher qualification than a diploma in that
discipline and, whether degree holders are eligible for appointment to
the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment
rules.”
31.3 Facially, therefore, the issue arising in Puneet Sharma was
akin to that which arises before us. However, as the discussion
hereinafter would disclose, the Supreme Court did not really address
that issue and decided the matter on another consideration.
31.4 The post in question in Punjeet Sharma was Junior Engineer
22
(Electrical) in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board . The
prescribed minimum essential qualification was “matriculation with
Diploma in Electrical/Electronics/Electronics and Communication/
Computer Science from a recognized Institution/Board/University
duly recognized by the Central or State Government”.
31.5 The appellants before the Supreme Court were degree holders
in Electricals and Electronics. They contended that, as a degree was a
higher qualification than a diploma, degree holders would ipso facto
23
be eligible for recruitment as Junior Engineer .
22
“HPSEB” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 23 of 40
31.6 The High Court held that, while the normal rule was that a
candidate with higher qualifications would be deemed to satisfy the
prescribed lower qualification, the higher qualification had to be in the
same channel. Observing that a degree in Engineering was not in the
same line as a diploma in Engineering, the High Court held that
degree holders would not be eligible for recruitment as JE.
31.7 The Supreme Court, in para 24 of the report, notes that “the
question whether the stipulation or prescription of the particular
academic qualification excludes an applicant who possesses what is
termed as a higher qualification, from their candidature to the post
concerned”, had often arisen for consideration before it. Thereafter,
the Supreme Court takes note of the judgments in P.M. Latha , Yogesh
Kumar, Jyoti K.K., Anita and Zahoor Ahmed Rather , before
proceeding to deal with the controversy before it thus:
“31. In the present case, what is evident from the rules is that
direct recruitment to the post of JEs in HPSEB is to the extent of
72%. Undoubtedly, eligibility is amongst those who passed in
matriculation or 10+2 or its equivalent qualification. However, this
Court is of the opinion that the diploma-holders' contention that the
minimum qualification is matriculation and that the technical
qualification is diploma is incorrect. The minimum qualification
for the post cannot be deemed to be only matriculation but rather
that only such of those matriculates, or 10+2 pass students, who are
diploma-holders would be eligible. The term “with” in this
category has to be read as conjunctive.
32. As far as the merits of the main question i.e. whether the
degree-holders too can apply for the post of JEs, a close
examination of the rules shows that a lion's share of the posts at the
JE level is set apart for direct recruitment. However, when it is at
the level of the higher post i.e. Assistant Engineer which is a
promotional post direct recruitment is only to the extent of 36%. Of
23
“JE” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 24 of 40
the balance 64%, various sub-quotas have been stipulated for
feeder cadres; the largest percentage being for Junior Engineers.
For a long time, even on the date of the advertisement, two distinct
quotas (of 5%) had been set apart for promotion of Junior
Engineers holding degree qualifications in the subject concerned.
33. This Court is conscious that the issue in question is whether
the minimum qualification of a diploma in electrical or electronic
engineering or other prescribed qualifications includes a degree in
that discipline. However, the rules have to be considered as a
whole. So viewed, the two sub-quotas are:
(1) 5% enabling those diploma-holders who acquire
degree qualifications during service as Junior Engineers;
and
(2) 5% enabling among those who hold degrees before
joining as Junior Engineers .
34. The latter (2) conclusively establishes that what the rule-
making authority undoubtedly had in mind was that degree-holders
too could compete for the position of JEs as individuals holding
equivalent or higher qualifications. If such interpretation were not
given, there would be no meaning in the 5% sub-quota set apart for
those who were degree-holders before joining as Junior Engineers
— in terms of the recruitment rules as existing.
*
39. The considerations which weighed with this Court in the
previous decisions i.e. P.M. Latha , Yogesh Kumar , Anita were
quite different from the facts of this case. This Court's conclusions
that the prescription of a specific qualification, excluding what is
generally regarded as a higher qualification can apply to certain
categories of posts. Thus, in Latha and Yogesh Kumar as well
as Anita those possessing degrees or post-graduation or BEd
degrees, were not considered eligible for the post of primary or
junior teacher. In a similar manner, for “Technician III” or lower
post, the equivalent qualification for the post of Junior Engineer i.e.
diploma-holders were deemed to have been excluded, in Zahoor
Ahmad Rather . This Court is cognizant of the fact that in Anita as
well as Zahoor the stipulation in Jyoti which enabled
consideration of candidates with higher qualifications was deemed
to be a distinguishing ground. No such stipulation exists in
the HPSEB Rules. Yet, of material significance is the fact that the
higher post of Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior
Engineer) has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional quota. Amongst
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 25 of 40
these individuals, those who held degrees before appointment as
Junior Engineers are entitled for consideration in a separate and
distinct sub-quota, provided they function as a Junior Engineer
continuously for a prescribed period. This salient aspect cannot be
overlooked; it only shows the intent of the rule-makers not to
exclude the degree-holders from consideration for the lower post of
Junior Engineers.
”
31.8 Thus, the Supreme Court did not really address the issue of
whether a candidate possessing a qualification higher than that
prescribed would be eligible for recruitment to a post for which the
prescribed qualification was lower. Rather, the Supreme Court
proceeded on the premise that separate quotas had been provided, for
recruitment as JE, for diploma holders and degree holders. Allowing
degree holders to compete for the posts meant for diploma holders
would, therefore, result in equation of the two quotas and would
militate against the idea of having separate quotas. In that view of the
matter, the Supreme Court held, in para 39 of the report, that the issue
which arose in P.M. Latha , Yogesh Kumar and Anita was not really
arising for consideration before it.
24
32. Jomon K K v. Shajimon P
32.1 This decision is, to an extent, dispositive of the issue in
controversy
.
32.2 The case dealt with recruitment to the post of Boat Lascar in the
Kerala State Water Department. Among the essential qualifications
prescribed for recruitment was “possession of Current Lascar’s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 26 of 40
Licence”. The appellant before the Supreme Court possessed a
Syrang’s licence. The post of Lascar was admittedly a feeder post for
the post of Syrang. The contention of the appellant was, therefore, that
as he held a licence for the post of Syrang, which was a promotional
post from that of Lascar, he was entitled to be considered for
appointment against the post of Boat Lascar, which only required a
Lascar’s licence. Significantly, the appellant placed reliance on
decision in Parvez Ahmed Parry .
32.3 The Supreme Court identified, in para 12 of the report, the
central issue of law arising for consideration as “whether the
appellant, who did not hold Current Lascar’s License but was a holder
of Syrang’s license could have been considered qualified to
participate in the recruitment process as well as appointed”. The
Supreme Court addressed the issue thus:
“20. Next, turning to the crux of the issue, it is absolutely
necessary to bear in mind that though the posts of Syrang and
Lascar are included in Class III of the Subordinate Service, the
requisite qualifications for appointment on such posts as ordained
by the Special Rules are different. Moreover, it is specifically
ordained by Rule 6 of the Special Rules as follows:
“ 6. Other Qualifications. - No person shall be eligible for
appointment to the categories specified in column (1) of the
Table below by the method specified in column (2) unless he
possesses the qualifications prescribed in the corresponding
entry in column (3) thereof. ”
21. As noted in the factual narrative, possession of a current
Lascar's licence is an essential qualification for anyone aspiring for
the post of Lascar. This is what is laid down in column (3), i.e., the
qualifications required; and going by what is said therein read with
Rule 6, there can be no gainsaying that apart from those having a
24
2025 SCC OnLine SC 711
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 27 of 40
current Lascar's licence, none else is eligible. The word “current” is
also significant in the sense that the Rules insist on a subsisting
licence, i.e., a certificate of competency, which is valid and
operative during the time the last date for receiving applications
intervenes.
22. The advertisement did not require anything else other than
what the Special Rules require. The absence of express mention
that those holding a Syrang's licence or a Driver's licence which,
according to the Director, are superior to a Lascar's licence, is
insignificant, irrelevant and immaterial having regard to the clear
terms of Rule 6 (supra).
23. Viewed from a different angle, on a conjoint reading of
Rule 6 of the Special Rules and the advertisement, we find both
mentioning a particular qualification, i.e., a current Lascar's
licence, which each aspirant has to possess for being considered
eligible to participate in the process of selection, thereby creating a
distinct class and it is aspirants falling in such class alone who
could have applied for being considered. Thus, any aspirant, even
though possessing a Syrang's licence or a Driver's licence not being
part of such distinct class, could not have been considered eligible.
The classification has not been shown to be and is not
unreasonable.
24. True it is, from the reply statement of the Director filed
before the Tribunal and also from the 2010 Rules, it does appear
that the holder of a Syrang's licence is mandatorily required to
obtain and have a Lascar's licence for 2 years and, therefore,
without having a Lascar's licence one cannot apply for a Syrang's
licence. By the same analogy, it could be presumed that the holder
of a Syrang's licence is having the requisite eligibility to be a
Lascar. However, what turns the tide against the appellant is the
requirement of the ‘current’ Lascar's licence, discussed above,
which the appellant did not have on the last date for receiving
applications.
*
27. There is one other important aspect which also cannot be
lightly overlooked. We shall assume for a moment that though the
process was commenced for appointment on vacant posts of
Lascar, there was no illegality in persons having Syrang's licence
being permitted to participate. Of course, there could be aspirants
holding Lascar's licence in sufficient numbers who might not have
the higher qualifications necessary for even appearing for a viva
voce to aim at possessing a certificate of competency as Syrang.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 28 of 40
Those aspirants, holding a Lascar's licence, might not also be so
capable and/or competent for obtaining a Syrang's licence. After
all, all individuals are not blessed with the same level of
intelligence, human abilities and intellect. The distribution of
innate abilities and intellectual prowess being far from uniform,
resulting in a diverse spectrum of human potential, it is axiomatic
that aspirants having only a Lascar's licence can never be
considered for direct recruitment on any post in Class III of the
Subordinate Service other than a Lascar. It is quite but natural that
in the matter of observation, perception and memorisation of
details of principles of navigation, and skill in respect of
seamanship, there would be significant differences in the faculties
of different individuals. If persons holding Syrang's licence - who
are obviously better equipped than persons holding Lascar's licence
- are allowed to apply and participate in the process for
appointment on the post of Lascar, the probability of the persons
holding Lascar's licence being outperformed by the persons
holding Syrang's licence would be quite high. It could also be a
distinct possibility where all the vacant posts of Lascar are filled up
by persons having Syrang's licence but not having a current
Lascar's licence as per the statutory requirement. That would pose
a real difficulty for persons not so fortunate and lacking in higher
intelligence, abilities and intellect, for, they would cease to have a
level playing field of competing with other similarly qualified
candidates, and left to compete with candidates having higher
qualifications despite the zone of consideration having been
specially carved out for holders of current Lascar's licence. It is not
that the holders of Syrang's licence are left in the lurch. Those
having Syrang's licence could well compete for appointment on the
post of Syrang in the 50% direct recruitment quota along with
others having current Syrang's licence. If, in case, all the vacant
posts of Lascar are filled up by persons having Syrang's licence
and such holders of Syrang's licence do not participate in the
process for direct recruitment to the post of Syrang, it is fairly
likely that the persons holding Lascar's licence would never secure
any public employment. That could not have been the intention of
a welfare State.
28. Also, it cannot be gainsaid that not only the qualifications
but the nature of duties required to be performed and the nature of
service to be rendered by a Lascar and a Syrang are different.
Merely because the post of Lascar is a feeder post for promotion to
the post of Syrang does not per se make the holder of a Syrang's
licence qualified for the job of a Lascar. Thus, nothing much turns
on it.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 29 of 40
29. Law is well-settled that an appointment made contrary to
the statute/statutory rule would be void [see: Pramod
25
Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission ].
30. Based on such consideration, we are ad idem with the
Division Bench of the High Court that KPSC could not have
included candidates with licences other than a Lascar's licence in
the “Ranked List” and proceed to recommend those candidates for
appointment.
31. On merits, therefore, no legally protected right of the
appellant having been affected by the impugned action, he has no
valid claim.
32. We have considered the decisions of this Court in Parvaiz
Ahmed Parry (supra) and Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra).
33. In Parvaiz Ahmed Parry (supra) the appellant therein
possessed degrees in BSc with Forestry as one of his major
subjects as well as MSc (Forestry). The qualification prescribed in
the Advertisement was “ BSc (Forestry) or equivalent from any
university recognised by ICAR ”. This Court held that the
appellant's qualifications were equivalent to the minimum
prescribed qualifications and should be considered for the
concerned post.
*
36. We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the
employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on
the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or
has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by
statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of
the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically
required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules
governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of
duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a
host of other factors. It has to be remembered that, at times, the
employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not
always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of
decisions holding that over-qualification cannot be a
disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging
the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand and on the other,
such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not
in national interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a
25
(2008) 7 SCC 153
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 30 of 40
straitjacket imposing rigid or inflexible rules or norms. Lack of
public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force
even a Master degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he
is appointed upon his application being favourably considered,
what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of
th
pursuing study beyond the 12 standard? Do they remain
unemployed forever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are
filled up by such degree holders? What happens if the Master
degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of
Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his
qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case,
burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a
fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer,
obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those
having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates,
for sub-serving the common good? Does not the State have the
obligation to strive to ensure that all citizens have adequate means
of livelihood? These are questions which no Court can afford to
ignore. We end by saying that each case that comes before the
Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem
that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally
accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be
preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification
required for the post.”
32.4 In the afore-extracted paragraphs, the Supreme Court has relied
on Rule 6 of the Special Rules of 1975 which applied in the case
before it and which provided that possession of the prescribed
qualification was mandatory. The Supreme Court also noted that the
qualifications for appointment as Lascar and Syrang were distinct and
different.
32.5 In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court held that
possession of a Syrang’s Licence was irrelevant and that a person who
did not possess a Current Lascar’s License could not qualify for
recruitment as Boat Lascar. In para 24 of the report, the Supreme
Court held the use of the expression “current” in the prescribed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 31 of 40
qualifications as pivotal. A current and subsisting Lascar’s license
was, therefore, an indispensable requirement for appointment as Boat
Lascar.
32.6 The decision in Parvaiz Ahmed Parry was distinguished by the
Supreme Court, in para 33 of the report, by observing that the issue
there was that of equivalence of the qualification held by the appellant
before the Supreme Court with the qualification of B.Sc (Forestry) .
32.7 Of particular significance, to the issue before us, are paragraphs
27 and 36 of the report, particularly the latter.
32.8 In para 36, the Supreme Court has held that the issue of whether
a candidate possessing a qualification higher than that prescribed
could be recruited against a post had to be decided considering
various factors such as the rules governing the selection, qualifications
prescribed, nature of duty to be performed, nature of service to be
rendered and a host of other factors. The prerogative of an employer,
at times too, require persons who were not over-qualified, had to be
conceded. Allowing candidates who were over-qualified to be
appointed to a post which required lesser qualifications was noted, by
the Supreme Court, as being likely to prejudice the employment
opportunities of those who were not in a position to acquire higher
qualifications. Subserving of the common good, it was held, required,
at times, that persons who possessed qualifications higher than those
prescribed were not allowed to occupy posts which were meant for
persons with lesser qualifications. This was essential in order to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 32 of 40
ensure that all citizens had adequate means of livelihood and that
over-qualified persons did not swallow up all the posts.
26
33. General Manager (HR) v. K. Poovarasan
33.1 An example of what was observed by the Supreme Court in
para 36 of Jomon is to be found in the subsequent judgment in
General Manager (HR) v. K. Poovarasan , which is the last judgment
which we would be required to discuss. In Poovarasan , the Supreme
Court was dealing with appointment to the post of Temporary
Attender. The requisition for the post specifically stipulated that the
th
candidate had to have passed the 8 standard but should not have
th
passed the 12 standard or acquired any higher qualification. The
respondent before the Supreme Court was a graduate. The issue before
the Supreme Court was as to whether he would qualify for
appointment against the post of Temporary Attender.
33.2 The Supreme Court reproduced, in extenso , para 36 of the
Jomon and, thereafter, proceeded to hold thus:
“10. In the present case, it is manifest from the communication
dated 20.10.2009 sent by the appellants to the Employment
Exchange that the minimum qualification prescribed was a pass in
th
the 8 standard and the maximum qualification prescribed was that
the candidate should not have passed the Intermediate or
th
12 Standard or 10 + 2 Examination. The rationale behind
prescribing an upper limit of qualification is both reasonable and
equitable, namely, to provide employment opportunities to persons
who, owing to circumstances of life, could not pursue higher
education. The State, as a model employer, is justified in reserving
certain categories of posts for such persons so that they are not
26
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1048
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 33 of 40
compelled to compete with more highly qualified candidates
against whom they would ordinarily stand little chance of
selection. Such a policy has consistently been upheld by the
Courts. Thus, when the post was specifically intended for
candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting
a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment
would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and
deserving candidate of the opportunity.
11. Even if it is assumed that there was no deliberate attempt on
the part of the respondent to mislead the authorities at the initial
stage, the fact remains that as per the requisition issued by the
appellants, only candidates not possessing qualifications higher
than the prescribed limit were eligible for consideration. Once it
came to light that on the date his name was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange, the respondent possessed qualifications
beyond the permissible limit, he ceased to be eligible for
consideration itself. Consequently, he could not have proceeded to
the next stage of selection, and any subsequent action taken by the
appellants would not create any enforceable right in his favour to
continue in service.”
33.3 Thus, in Poovarasan , the Supreme Court reiterated the position
that appointments had to be made in accordance with the
qualifications prescribed for a post. If candidates with lower
qualifications could not be treated as eligible, equally, candidates with
higher qualifications were also not eligible to compete. Poovarasan
takes Jomon a step ahead, and reiterates the aspect of public interest
involved in ensuring that persons with higher qualifications could not
be allowed to monopolise posts meant for persons with lower
qualifications. The need to maintain this distinction, so as to ensure
maximum employability, again stands emphasised in Poovarasan.
The Sequitur
34. When examines the decision cited supra, the only decision,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 34 of 40
prior to Jomon , which directly addresses the issue of whether a
candidate with a higher qualification could be treated as eligible for a
post which prescribed a lower qualification, is Parvaiz Ahmad Parry .
Seen in isolation, that decision would seem to support the case of the
respondents as the Supreme Court held, in that case, that, though the
prescribed educational qualification was B.Sc (Forestry) a person who
has studied B.Sc with Forestry as an additional subject and who
possessed M.Sc in Forestry would ipso facto be entitled for
consideration and appointment against the post even though he did not
possess a dedicated B.Sc degree in Forestry.
35. Had Jomon not come along, we may have been inclined to hold
in favour of the respondents, in view of the law declared in Parvaiz
Ahmad Parry . However, Parvaiz Ahmad Parry, besides being a
decision of a co-equal Bench, has been noticed and distinguished in
Jomon. After noticing Parvaiz Ahmad Parry, Jomon has held, in para
36, in clear, candid and unequivocal terms, that a person holding a
higher qualification cannot be recruited against a post for which the
prescribed educational qualification is lower.
36. For the first time, among the judgments that we have had
chance to come across, which we have noticed supra, the aspect of the
public interest element involved in ensuring that posts were held by
persons possessing the qualifications prescribed for the posts and were
not thrown open to persons with higher qualifications was first noted
in Jomon . The necessity of ensuring that everyone secured
employment, and that persons with higher qualifications did not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 35 of 40
monopolise posts which were meant for persons with lower
qualifications, was underscored in Jomon.
37. If two decisions of Coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court
exposit contrary views, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union
Territory of Ladakh and Ors v Jammu and Kashmir National
27
Conference , requires, in para 35 thereof, High Courts to follow the
earlier decision. That principle, however, would apply where the
earlier decision has not been noticed in the later decision. Had Jomon
not noticed Parvaiz Ahmad Parry, this issue may have arisen for
consideration. Once, however, the later decision has noticed the earlier
decision and, thereafter, proceeded to exposit the law, a court lower in
the judicial hierarchy is bound to follow the later decision. This would
be all the more so where the two decisions are of co-equal Benches
such as Parvaiz Ahmad Parry and Jomon.
38. We, therefore, are bound by the declaration of the law in para
36 of the Jomon which holds, after noticing Parvaiz Ahmad Parry ,
that the necessity, at times, of filling up posts with persons having
lesser qualifications has to be recognized and conceded and that,
therefore, persons not possessing those qualifications but possessing
qualifications which are facially “higher” cannot aspire thereto. Our
understanding is fortified by the fact that para 36 in Jomon has been
adopted and followed by the Supreme Court later in Poovarasan ,
which reiterates the philosophy contained in para 36 of Jomon .
27
(2024) 18 SCC 643
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 36 of 40
39. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that persons holding
higher qualifications cannot, by virtue of such qualifications, seek
recruitment to posts which are to be filled by persons with lower
qualifications.
40. In that view of the matter, we cannot sustain the respondents
contention that, as they possessed Master’s degrees in Domestic
Science/Home Science, they would be deemed to possess Bachelor’s
degrees in the said disciplines.
Another Aspect
41. In the particular facts of this case, there is yet another reason
why we cannot accept the respondents contention. The Bachelor’s
degree which has been stipulated in the advertisement notice is a
Bachelor’s degree in Domestic Science/Home Science. None of the
respondents, admittedly, satisfied the said requirement, or could have
satisfied the said requirement, as they hold B.A. (Pass) degrees. The
principle that a holder of a higher qualification must be deemed to
possess the lower qualification, which informed the decision in
Parvaiz Ahmad Parry and, earlier, the decision in Jyoti , cannot
obviously apply where it was impossible for the person to possess the
lower qualification. A deeming fiction cannot conflict with plain
reality. Law cannot, by fiction, deem that which could not have
existed at all.
42. Inasmuch as the respondents had undertaken and cleared B.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 37 of 40
(Pass) courses, they could never have possessed Bachelor’s degree in
Domestic Science/Home Science. There could be no question,
therefore, of deeming them to have possessed the said degree because
they possessed a higher Master’s degree in Domestic Science/ Home
Science. The principle of “deemed possession” of the lower
qualification by a person who possessed the higher qualification
would not, therefore, apply in the present case.
43. This is yet another reason why the respondents cannot be
treated as satisfying the prescribed eligibility qualifications for
appointment as Domestic Science Teacher (TGT).
Yet another aspect
44. The question of higher qualification subsuming lower
qualification should be seen from one more angle. A student, when
opting for a Bachelor’s course in an exclusive subject, like Home
Science in the present case, takes a conscious decision to direct his/her
all time and energies to a particular field of education and career line.
In this process, he might consciously be closing doors to many other
academic and career options. For example, probably he may not get
admission to a Master’s programme in some other discipline or may
not even be in a position to compete for jobs with other candidates
having the degrees in other courses, because of his not having studied
the other subjects. As in the present case, the petitioners with a B.A.
degree had studied many other subjects apart from Home Science and
thus had a wider scope in career options. If we allow a higher degree
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 38 of 40
to subsume a lower degree, the candidates, who had exclusively
devoted their energies in a particular subject immediately after school
level, thereby restricting their academic and career progress to one
field only, would have to compete with candidates, having a
graduation degree with many subjects, thereby becoming eligible for a
wider range of jobs. This would lead to unfair treatment to the
candidates who did B.A. exclusively in a particular subject, which in
the present case is Bachelor’s Degree in Domestic Science/Home
Science.
45. We may also view the case from employer’s perspective. The
employer may possibly have a ‘catch them young’ policy in mind
when prescribing a particular qualification. Secondly, such employer
would also want a higher level of dedication for the job, which can be
expected more from the candidates who had chosen it as an exclusive
academic path after school. The argument of a higher decree
subsuming a lower degree is thus rendered specious. The employer
has a right to specify the educational qualification required to be
possessed by aspirants for the jobs advertised by him and courts
should ordinarily not interfere in the same.
46. Additionally, it was argued by Ms. Kajal Chandra that only one
college provides full-fledged BA degree in Home Science. No such
plea was advanced before the Tribunal. Assuming, arguendo, only
one college provides a Bachelor’s degree in Domestic Science/Home
Science, that would still not provide a ground for accepting candidates
having Master’s degree in Home Science. The reason is that every
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 39 of 40
educational institution has a right to make assessment of the future
demands of the market and for that purpose they would be entitled to
take a lead in providing full-fledged degree courses, of course, as per
rules and laws applicable in the country. Notably, Ms. Chandra does
not seek to contend that a Bachelors’ degree in Domestic
Science/Home Science is non-existent, or unknown.
47. We have not deemed it necessary to advert to the judgments of
this Court in Srishti and Monika Sharma , as these decisions were
rendered by this Court prior to the declaration of law in Jomon and
Poovarasan and cannot, therefore, continue to apply in the light of
such declaration.
Conclusion
48. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to sustain the
judgment of the Tribunal which is, therefore, quashed and set aside.
We hold that the respondents were not eligible for being recruited as
Domestic Science Teacher.
49. The writ petition, therefore, stands allowed in the aforesaid
terms with no orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
AR
JULY 15 2026/ yg/aky/dsn/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2026
11:10:02
W.P.(C) 2818/2024 Page 40 of 40