THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. vs SHRI.YOHANNAN SAJEEVAN

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTION WRIT JURISDICTION
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE


WP.CT/58/2025

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … PETITIONERS

VS.

SHRI YOHANNAN SAJEEVAN AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS


For the petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For the respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.C. Kabir, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Ajith Prasad, Adv.

For the UGC : Ms. Debjani Ghoshal, Adv.

For the respondent No. 2 to 5,
7, 9, 10 & 11 : Mr. Rajinder Singh, Adv.
: Mr. D. Mallick, Adv.

Heard on : April 20, 2026

Judgment on : April 24, 2026



SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioners/authorities have preferred the present challenge
against a judgment dated November 01, 2025 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (Circuit setting at Port
Blair) in Original Application No. 351/0303/2023.
2. The applicant/respondent no. 1 preferred the said Original
Application before the Tribunal challenging Note-3 in Row-11 of the

2

Recruitment Rules dated October 04, 2022 as well as the promotion of
candidates to the post of Head Master (SS) and Vice Principal (SSS), who
did not possess educational qualification required for the said post but
were promoted by dint of the relaxation granted by the impugned Note-3.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the
concerned Recruitment Rules of 2022 were notified on October 04, 2022
by the Administrator, that is, the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and
Nicobar Islands only after extensive deliberations upon inviting claims
and objections from all stakeholders and scrutiny by a duly constituted
Empowered Committee. The said Recruitment Rules were also forwarded
to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for vetting, which
granted its approval on April 19, 2022 and, after amendments, again on
July 29, 2022.
4. Upon finalization of the Recruitment Rules and the feeder-cadre
seniority list, which was issued on February 23, 2023 after considering
the objections received, the Department initiated the process for filling up
51 vacancies of Head Master (Secondary School)/ Vice Principal (Senior
Secondary School) through the Departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC). The DPC examined the proposal and recommended promotion of
51 eligible teachers, upon which Promotion Order No. 436 dated March
04, 2024 was issued, followed by reporting directions under Order No.
437 dated March 04, 2024.

5. It is argued that the petitioners/authorities were fully empowered
to issue the Recruitment Rules and that due process was followed in

3

notifying the same. After the elaborate process preceding the same, the
same ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal.
6. It is further contended that there is a considerable dearth of Head
Masters (SS)/ Vice Principals (SSS) and as such there is immediate
urgency to fill up the vacancies in this regard. The impugned judgment,
it is submitted, has upset the entire process of filling up the vacancies as
well as the steps taken pursuant thereto, in the process disturbing the
entire seniority list of the concerned teachers.
7. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of Shri. Anil Xalxo
vs. the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and other
(M.A. No. 003 of 2018) , where a coordinate Bench of this Court had
observed that some value was to be given to the past service of the
respondents therein of 25 years and the experience of teaching, which
was considered “to some extent” as a substitute of a bridge course, who
were similarly placed as the teachers who were promoted by virtue of the
impugned Recruitment Rules.
8. It is contended that the genesis of the dispute is that in a
Regulation framed by the University Grants Commission on November
25, 1985, it was stipulated that no student shall be eligible for the award
of the first Degree (Bachelor Degree) unless he has successfully
completed three years course. The first proviso to Clause 2(3) thereof
provided that no student shall be eligible to seek admission to the
Masters course in the faculties mentioned therein, who had not
successfully pursued the first Degree Course of three years duration.

4

9. However, the second proviso stipulated that if a one-year bridge
course was passed by the candidates who had completed a two year
course, they shall be eligible for admission to the Masters Degree course.
10. It is submitted that at the relevant point of time, prior to the said
Regulation, only the two years course was being offered and, as such,
several candidates fell under the mischief of the said Regulation. It is
submitted that by a subsequent communication dated August 17, 2015,
the UGC informed the Vice Chancellors of all Universities that the
aforesaid restriction of a bridge course would not be applicable to the
students who had enrolled themselves in the first Degree Course prior to
June 04, 1986, the date on which the aforesaid Regulation came into
force, and to students who had successfully completed their Degree
Course prior to the said date, and that irrespective of the duration, they
shall be treated at par with the students who had completed the three
years Degree Course and they would not be required to undergo a further
one-year bridge course.
11. Thus, it is argued that the communication dated August 17, 2015
superseded the earlier Regulation and, as such, regularized the two years
course.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the two
years course being prevalent for a considerable period and the Degree
conferred on completion of the same being of equivalent value as a three
years course, there cannot be any discrimination between the two. It is
further argued that Note-3 of Serial No. 11 of the concerned Regulation

5

merely gave relief to the candidates who were already in service in the
concerned posts. Thus, by itself, the said Note-3 could not be said to be
violative of any provision of law.
13. It is further contended that the petitioners/authorities do not have
the power or jurisdiction and/or any necessity to look behind that the
Degrees conferred by the concerned Universities. Since the Universities
themselves issued the Degrees to the concerned candidates, the
petitioners proceeded on the premise that those were valid.
14. It is argued that since the candidates who fell within the ambit of
Note-3 had already completed their Masters Degrees, it was not for the
petitioners to question the validity of the same, as the concerned
Universities granting such Degrees were the best judges of the validity of
the same.
15. Such Degrees having not been cancelled by the UGC, it is argued
that the learned Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in setting aside Note-
3.
16. Learned counsel further argues that the effect of the impugned
judgment would be disastrous, creating numerous vacancies and
affecting the education system in the Islands. Moreover, the services of
the Masters Degree holders who were already working in the concerned
1
posts would also be invalidated in the teeth of Shri. Anil Xalxo (supra) ,
which permitted such candidates to continue in service .

1
M.A. No. 003 of 2018

6

17. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5, 7,9, 10 and 11,
who are some of the existing candidates already in service and were given
the benefit of Note-3, places reliance on Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra, reported at (1976) 1 SCC 311, in support of the
proposition that it was the duty of the University to scrutinize the records
and that if the University did not take care to so scrutinize, the question
of the students committing a fraud did not arise, as there was no
question of any false impression having been given by the students. It is
submitted that the private respondents cannot suffer for the act of
University.
18. Learned counsel places reliance on a Gazette Notification dated
March 01, 1995 published by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (Department of Education), Union of India declaring that all
the qualifications awarded through Distance Education by the recognized
Universities mentioned therein stand automatically recognized for the
purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central
Government. Thus, the distance learning courses undertaken by the
private respondents received a blanket sanction by the Government of
India for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the
Central Government. In such view of the matter, it is argued that the
learned Tribunal erred in law and acted without jurisdiction in setting
aside the relaxation granted under the concerned Regulations to such
employees.

7

19. Learned counsel also relies on a Notification dated May 30, 1986 of
the UGC in partial modification of the 1985 Regulations regarding
minimum standards of instructions for the grant of first Degree, where it
was stipulated that the UGC shall have the right to grant relaxation to a
University in regard to the date of implementation or for admission to the
first or second Degree Courses or to give exemption for a specified period
in regard to other clauses in the Regulations on the merit of each case.
Thus, it is argued that the bar pleaded by the applicant/respondent no.
1 before the Tribunal was not absolute but was substantially diluted by
the UGC itself. Hence, it is argued that the Tribunal’s approach, to the
extent that the UGC Regulations were violated, was erroneous. That
apart, learned counsel adopts the arguments of the petitioners.

20. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent
no.1 argues that Note-3 contemplates a relaxation which gives a go-by to
the entire eligibility criteria contemplated in the 2022 Regulation itself. It
is argued that if such exemption is granted, there would be undue
discrimination against the honest candidates who completed their three
years course in accordance with law as per the UGC guidelines and, in
the process, lost an extra year compared to the candidates who did only
the two years course. Thus, the candidates who chose to skip the UGC
Notification of 1985, thereby flouting the law, would get an unfair
advantage of a year in seniority, being able to join service a year ahead of
the three years course candidates. Hence, the effect would be that

8

premium would be given to violators of the law over candidates who
chose to adhere to the UGC guidelines and go by the rule-book.
21. It is further submitted that the communication dated August 17,
2015 by the UGC was not in derogation or supersession of the 1985
Regulation but was merely clarificatory in nature. Since there was a
doubt as to the fate of the students who had enrolled themselves or had
successfully completed their first year Degree Course before coming into
force of the Regulation, the said communication clarified that the rigors
of the 1985 Regulation would not be applicable to them. Nonetheless, if
candidates of the two years course failed to take the one-year bridge
course as stipulated in the 1985 Regulation, they would not be eligible to
take admission into the Masters Degree course at the threshold. Hence,
the Masters Degree conferred on candidates who failed to take the bridge
course remained invalid, but was sought to be validated by the offending
Note-3.
22. Learned senior counsel places reliance on a communication by the
UPSC dated December 17, 2025, requesting the Andaman and Nicobar
Administration to take necessary action for framing/amendment the
Recruitment Rules for the post of Head master/ Vice Principal as well as
for implementation of other directions of the Tribunal, in terms of the
order of the Tribunal. Thus, it is submitted that the said process ought
not to be halted at this stage.

9

2
23. Insofar as Shri. Anil Xalxo (supra) is concerned, learned senior
counsel argues that even in the said case, the Master Degrees of the two
years course candidates who failed to do the bridge course were not
validated. Merely taking into consideration the fact that those persons
had already been in service for some time, penal action was not taken
against them. However, such protection did not entitle the said
candidates automatically to the further right of unlawful promotion on
the basis of their otherwise invalid Degrees.
24. Learned senior counsel seeks to rely on a list of the candidates
which has been prepared pursuant to the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal as well.
25. Learned counsel appearing for the UGC places reliance on the
communication dated August 17, 2015, annexed to the affidavit-in-
opposition of the UGC, and argues that the same was merely clarificatory
in view of the doubts having arisen and did not supersede the Regulation
on 1985.
26. Upon a consideration of the arguments of the parties, the Court
comes to the following conclusions:
27. Before entering into the merits of the matter, Rule 2(3) of the UGC
Regulation dated November 25, 1985, which came into force on June 04,
1986, and its provisos, are required to be scrutinized. The same are set
out hereinbelow:-

2
M.A. No. 003 of 2018

10

“2. Admission/Students:
… …
(3) No student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree
unless he has successfully completed a three year course, this
degree may be called the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.
(General/Honours/Special) degree as the case may be.
Provided no student shall be eligible to seek admission to the
Masters Course in these faculties, who has not successfully
pursued the first Degree Course of three years duration.
Provided further that, as a transistory measure where the
universities are unable to change over to a three year degree course,
they may award a B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (Pass) degree on successful
completion of two year course, but that no student of this stream
shall be eligible for admission to the Masters course unless he has
undergone further one year bridge course and passed the same.
The three year degree course after 10+2 stage should in no case be
termed as B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (Pass) degree.”

28. Even on a plain reading thereof, it is crystal-clear that sub-clause
(3) of Clause 2 is couched in a negative language, debarring the eligibility
of any student for the award of the first Degree unless he has
successfully completed a three years course.
29. The first proviso thereto denudes the eligibility of students who
have not successfully pursued the first Degree Course of three years’
duration even to seek admission to the Masters Course.

30. The second proviso provides some relief, however, mandating that
in order to wriggle out of the mischief of the first proviso and be eligible
for admission to the Masters Course, a further one-year bridge course
has to be passed.
31. Thus, the two provisos and sub-clause (3) of the Clause 2 of the
1985 Regulation mandates either a three years first Degree Course to be
completed or a two years course to be completed along with a one year

11

bridge course, to render the candidates eligible even for entry to the
Masters Degree Course.
32. The communication by the UGC to the Vice Chancellors of all
Universities vide D.O. No. 1-15/2015(CPP-II) dated August 17, 2015 was
merely by way of further clarification to the 1985 Regulation, as is self-
evident, in view of various representations coming from stakeholders
seeking clarification on the application of the 1985 Regulation on
Degrees awarded prior to the date of its commencement that is, June 04,
1986. Only in such context did the said communication clarify that
students who had either enrolled themselves or had successfully
completed their first Degree Course prior to June 04, 1986, irrespective
of their duration, shall be treated at par with the students who have
completed three years Degree Course, without being required to undergo
a further one-year bridge course. The logic behind the same is evident,
since one cannot be punished for an act which is declared invalid on a
future date, by giving retrospective effect to such declaration. However,
there is no whisper in the August 17, 2015 communication as to the
supersession or derogation of the 1985 Regulation as a whole. The said
correspondence is not even couched as a subsequent Regulation but
clearly mentions that it is clarificatory of the 1985 Regulation itself.
33. Thus, the rigour of the 1985 Regulations is still in force.
34. The impugned Recruitment Rules are to be scrutinized in the
above perspective.

12

35. The said Recruitment Rules were promulgated by a Notification
issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration on October 04,
2022.
36. Serial No. 11 of the Schedule to the said Recruitment Rules is set
out below:
11. In case of recruitment by
promotion/deputation/abs
orption grades from which
promotion/deputation/abs
orption to be made
PROMOTION:
Post Graduate Teachers and
Headmaster (Middle School) in Level-
8 in the Pay Matrix (Rs.47,600-
1,51,100) with two years regular
service in the grade and having
Master's Degree and Bachelor's
Degree in Education from a
recognized University / Institute.
Note 1: The Eligibility List for
promotion shall be prepared with
reference to the date of completion
by the Officers of the prescribed
qualifying service in the respective
Grade / Post.
Note 2: Where Juniors who have
completed their qualifying /
Eligibility Service are being
considered for promotion, their
seniors would also be considered
provided they are not short of the
requisite qualifying / eligibility
service by more than half of such
qualifying eligibility service or two
years, whichever is less, and have
successfully completed their
probation period for promotion to the
next higher grade along with their
juniors who have already completed
such qualifying eligibility service.
Note 3: The requirement of
possessing the educational
qualifications for promotion shall not
be applicable for existing incumbents
holding the posts of Post Graduate
Teacher and Headmaster (Middle
School) on regular basis on the date
of Notification of these rules.

13

Deputation :-
Officer of the Central / State
Governments / Union Territories:-
(A) (I) Holding analogous posts on
a regular basis.
OR
(II) With 02 years regular
service in post in the Level-8
47,600-1,51,100) in Pay
Matrix or equivalent: AND
(B) Possessing the following
Educational Qualifications
and experience:
Essential:-
(1) Master's Degree from a
recognized University / Institute.
(II) Bachelor's Degree in Education
from a recognized
University/Institution.
(III) Five Years teaching experience
in a recognized Middle/Secondary
/ Sr. Secondary School.
Desirable:-
(I) Two (02) years administrative
experience in a recognized
Secondary / Sr. Secondary School.
(II) Must have studied Hindi as a
subject in Class 10

37. In the first Clause in the right-hand column pertaining to
promotion, the eligibility criteria for promotion are fixed at 2 years’
regular service in the grade of Post Graduate Teacher and Headmaster
(Middle School) in Level-8 in the Pay Matrix (Rs. 47,600-1,51,100) with
two years’ regular service in the grade and having Master’s Degree and
Bachelor’s Degree in Education from a recognized University/Institute.
38. Thus, amandatory eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of
Headmaster (Secondary School)/Vice-Principal as per Serial no. 11 itself

14

is having a Master’s Degree and Bachelor’s Degree in Education from a
recognized University/Institute.
39. Coming to Note-3, the same carves out an exception to the
eligibility criteria for existing incumbents holding the feeder posts on
regular basis, by exempting them from the rigours of the eligibility
criteria altogether. Thus, in the garb of providing exemption, the
minimum educational qualification required to be eligible for promotion
are done away with altogether for existing incumbents.
40. The said Note-3, thus, is patently contradictory to the main body of
the eligibility criteria stipulated in the Recruitment Rules themselves.
41. Moreover, such exemption has dangerous repercussions since, if
taken to its logical conclusion, it would exempt incumbents from the
minimum educational requirements required for promotion altogether.
The parameter for the discrimination between the exiting incumbents
and persons who join later is not only an unintelligible but also an
unlawful differential.
42. We say so because there is no nexus between the yardstick of
discrimination between the incumbents who were already in service
before the framing of the Recruitment Rules and the incumbents who
would join later, and the object sought to be achieved by the same.
43. Coming to the object, the same is also patently contrary to law,
being directly violative of the UGC Regulations of 1985. Both in Clause
2(3) and its provisos as well as the clarificatory communication dated

15

August 17, 2015, the UGC has made it amply clear that the threshold
eligibility criterion for entering into the Masters Degree Course is either
having a three years course first Degree, or a two years course first
Degree coupled with the one-year bridge course. The August 17, 2015
communication merely clarifies the position that the students who were
already enrolled in the first Degree Course or completed such Course on
the date of coming into force of the 1985 Regulation would be exempted
from the rigours of having to undergo an one-year bridge course.
44. In the event any of the existing incumbents come within the
exemption given under the August 17, 2015 communication, having
either enrolled or completed their first Degree Course before June 04,
1986, there would be no requirement of the Note-3 exemption for them to
be permitted to continue in service.
45. Thus, the exemption granted by Note-3 would only benefit
candidates who do not have a valid Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree in
Education.
46. The fallout of such exemption would have a cascading effect, since
the quality of education, of which the UGC is the best Judge and the
governing body, would be totally compromised, adversely affecting
students of the Universities in the Islands at large.
47. That apart, the exemption under Note-3 is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution, being discriminatory without any intelligible differentia
between valid degrees holders and those having invalid degrees.

16

48. The UGC, being the pan-India authority to determine the validity
and recognition of college/university degrees, is the sole judge of the
lawfulness of a University degree. Note-3 effectively violates the
regulations framed by the UGC itself, thus partaking the character of
being unlawful.
49. If Note-3 is retained, it would give a premium to unlawful Master’s
Degree holders who would get undue seniority over valid three years
course Bachelor’s Degree Holders or Holders of two years Course
Bachelor Degrees who have done a one-year bridge course, by getting
early entry into service and having an edge of at least a year over the
valid degree-holders in joining service. This would effectively disturb the
seniority of the valid degree holders on the face of it.
50. Insofar as the reliance placed by the petitioners and the
3
beneficiaries of Note-3 on Shri. Anil Xalxo (supra) is concerned, such
reliance is utterly misplaced. In Shri. Anil Xalxo (supra) , the Court
categorically observed that it did not agree with learned counsel for the
Administration and the private respondent for a moment that an illegal
act can be made legalized due to passage of time. However, relief was
granted to the existing service holders only on the ground that the Court
did not want to take away the bread-winning source of such persons
and/or of their dependent family members, giving “some value” to their
past service of 25 years and the experience of teaching which was,

3
M.A. No. 003 of 2018

17

however, considered only “to a little extent” as a substitute of the bridge
course.
51. Thus, the unlawful Degrees held by the private respondents in the
said case were not validated by the judgment but by applying the
principle of factum valet , the Court ensured merely that they are not
thrown out of their jobs and lose their livelihoods.
52. However, such grace of the Court cannot be construed to have
conferred on the invalid Masters Degree holders any special right or
equity and/or to have rendered valid their otherwise invalid Degrees.

53. Although relief was granted to the said invalid Degree holders as
a one-time measure, Shri. Anil Xalxo (supra) , in the same breath,
categorically observed that the said Degrees were invalid. The relief
granted to them was merely to protect their livelihood and services.
4
54. Thus, such legal fiction created in Shri. Anil Xalxo (supra) cannot
be cited by the invalid Degree holders to claim to the further privilege of
promotion on the strength of such invalid Degrees.
5
55. Insofar as Shri Krishnan (supra) is concerned, the dispute therein
was between the concerned University and its students, in which context
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the students could not be said
to have practised fraud for the negligence of the University itself in failing
to scrutinize the admission forms in order to find out whether those were
in order. The focus of the said judgment was the allegation of fraud

4
M.A. No. 003 of 2018
5
( 1976) 1 SCC 311

18

levelled against the students, in which perspective it was held that the
students could not be held guilty of fraud due to the callousness of the
University itself. However, the said ratio is applicable only inter se the
University and its students but does not validate the invalidity of the
Degrees of the concerned students otherwise.
56. Hence, the said judgment does not come to the aid of the private
respondents, who are the beneficiaries of Note-3, in any manner
whatsoever.
57. In view of the above discussions, we arrive at the only possible
conclusion that the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in setting
aside Note-3 of Serial No.11 of the Recruitment Rules of 2022 and
directing the petitioners to issue a fresh notification revising the
Recruitment Rules without the provisions as contained in Note-3 of the
said Recruitment Rules dated October 04, 2022, as well as directing the
present petitioners/authorities to initiate action to withdraw promotion
of the candidates to the post of Head Master (Secondary School) and Vice
Principal who did not possess the educational qualification required for
the posts and were considered for promotion only due to the relaxation
granted by the impugned Note-3.
58. Accordingly, WPCT/58/2025 is dismissed on contest, thereby
affirming the impugned judgment dated November 1, 2025 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in
OA/351/0303/2023.

19

59. There will be no order as to costs.
60. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

( SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
I agree

( SMITA DAS DE, J. )