MAMTA SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010387802026 2026:CGHC:45270
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7693 of 2026
1 - Mamta Sahu D/o Shri Ishwar Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years
Occupation Clinical Psychologist, State Mental Health Sendri
Bilaspur R/o -195, Main Road, Raipur Thakurdai, Square, Sakri,
District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary The Higher, Education
Department Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Registrar Shaheed Mahendra Karma Vishwavidyalaya,
Bastar Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Assistant Registrar, Shaheed, Mahandra Karma,
Vishwavidyalaya Bastar Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Vice, Chancellor, Shaheed, Mahendra Karma,
Vishwavidyalaya, Bastar Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Shivendra Jaiswal, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. A.G.
For Respective Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
27/10/2026
1.
By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

2
reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call the entire records pertains to the petitioner's case.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
enough to direct respondent's that, petitioner's case be
reconsidered regarding rejection of her candidature, re-
examined her eligibility in accordance with existing rules
and regulations of the university by constituting a
special committee and the entire process will be done
within any stipulated time period as Hon'ble Court
thinks fit and proper.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner,
which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts
and circumstances of the case, including awarding of
the costs to the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents/University issued advertisement for the post of
Assistant Professor (Psychology), for which, the petitioner has
applied for. The prescribed educational qualification was M.A.
in Psychology. He submits that the petitioner, holds a degree of
M.Sc. in Clinical Psychology, which, according to him, is an
allied subject falling within the broader discipline of Psychology.
However, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected
on the ground that he does not possess the prescribed
qualification of M.A. in Psychology, which is improper and
illegal.

3
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/University
submits that the advertisement prescribed M.A. in Psychology
as the requisite educational qualification for the post of
Assistant Professor (Psychology), whereas the petitioner holds
a degree of M.Sc. in Clinical Psychology. Referring to the
representation submitted by the petitioner, learned counsel
submits that the petitioner himself acknowledged that his
qualification was in an allied subject of Psychology, whereas
the advertisement specifically required a degree in Psychology.
It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner does not possess
the requisite qualification prescribed under the advertisement
and that his candidature has rightly been rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents.
5. It is well settled principle of law that equivalence of educational
degree is a complex academic and technical matter and courts
cannot declare different qualifications of courses equivalent on
their own, nor can they mandate that an employer accept
degree as equivalent unless recruiting rules explicitly provide
for it. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad
& Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 held in paragraph 26
as under :-
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the
interpretation which has been placed on the judgment

4
in Jyoti K.K. in the subsequent decision in Anita'. The
decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule
10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be
permissible to draw an inference that a higher
qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition
of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription
of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment
policy. The State as the employer is entitled to
prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility.
It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to
expand upon the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification
is not a matter which can be determined in exercise
of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular
qualification should or should not be regarded as
equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting
authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K.5
turned on a specific statutory rule under which the
holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the
acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of
such a rule in the present case makes a crucial
difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the
matter, the Division Bench' of the High Court was
justified in reversing the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the
appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications.
We find no error in the decision of the Division
Bench.”
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the advertisement,
the qualification prescribed therein, and the degree held by the
petitioner, it appears that the advertisement specifically

5
prescribed M.A. in Psychology as the requisite educational
qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Psychology).
The petitioner, admittedly, holds a degree of M.Sc. in Clinical
Psychology and claims that the same is an allied subject falling
within the broader discipline of Psychology. However, the fact
that Clinical Psychology is an allied subject of Psychology
does not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to claim eligibility for
the post in question when the advertisement specifically
prescribes M.A. in Psychology as the requisite qualification.
The petitioner has failed to establish that his qualification fulfills
the specific eligibility criteria prescribed under the
advertisement. In such circumstances, the rejection of the
petitioner's candidature by the respondents/University cannot
be said to be illegal or arbitrary.
7.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed .
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Amardeep