Facts
The petitioners applied for selection as Trained Graduate Teachers (Art Education) under KVS Advertisement No. 15/2022.
Source reference: p. 5–6The 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.
Source reference: p. 5–6The 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.
Source reference: p. 5–6The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed their Original Applications, prompting these writ petitions.
Source reference: p. 5–6Issues
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.
Source reference: p. 5–72. Whether those degrees could be treated as equivalent to the prescribed five-year recognised diploma in the absence of supporting material on record.
Source reference: p. 7–83. Whether the Tribunal’s decision warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 9Law Applied
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.
Source reference: p. 6–7The 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.
Source reference: p. 6–7Under 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.
Source reference: p. 8The 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.
Source reference: p. 8–9Reasoning
The petitioners’ BA and MA degrees did not, merely because they were higher qualifications, establish eligibility in place of the specified five-year diploma.
Source reference: p. 6–7Nor was there material before the Tribunal establishing that those degrees were equivalent to the prescribed diploma, as required to substantiate an equivalence claim.
Source reference: p. 8Nidhi 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.
Source reference: p. 8–9The Court therefore found no error in the Tribunal’s decision warranting writ interference.
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The Court held that the petitioners’ higher qualifications did not, without more, establish eligibility, and that their claim of equivalence was unsupported by material on record.
Finding no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petitions in limine.
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Arjun Singh Yadav & Ors.vsThe Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
