A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute for the Prescribed Recruitment Qualification.

The petitioners applied for selection as Trained Graduate Teachers (Art Education) under KVS Advertisement No. 15/2022.

The prescribed qualifications were a five-year recognised diploma in Drawing and Painting, Sculpture or Graphic Art, or an equivalent recognised degree, together with working knowledge of Hindi and English.

The petitioners, who held BA degrees in Fine Arts and MA degrees in Drawing and Painting, were not permitted to participate in the interview because KVS considered them unqualified.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed their Original Applications, prompting these writ petitions.

1. Whether possession of the petitioners’ BA and MA degrees, as higher qualifications, made them eligible for the TGT (Art Education) post despite their not possessing the prescribed qualification.

2. Whether those degrees could be treated as equivalent to the prescribed five-year recognised diploma in the absence of supporting material on record.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s decision warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, State of Punjab v. Anita, Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of J&K, Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. and General Manager (HR) v. K. Poovarasan, as synthesised in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manu.

The governing principle is that a candidate cannot claim eligibility for a post merely by holding a qualification that is facially higher than the prescribed qualification; the prescribed qualification must be possessed.

Under Unnikrishnan v. Union of India, equivalence is not for a court to determine in the absence of material substantiating the claim; the party asserting equivalence must produce that material.

The Court distinguished Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Nidhi Rani, where the advertisement itself accepted a degree in Fine Arts as an alternative qualification and did not limit it to a bachelor’s or master’s degree.

The petitioners’ BA and MA degrees did not, merely because they were higher qualifications, establish eligibility in place of the specified five-year diploma.

Nor was there material before the Tribunal establishing that those degrees were equivalent to the prescribed diploma, as required to substantiate an equivalence claim.

Nidhi Rani did not assist the petitioners because its advertisement expressly provided for a degree in Fine Arts as an alternative qualification, unlike the qualification at issue here.

The Court therefore found no error in the Tribunal’s decision warranting writ interference.

Finding no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petitions in limine.