A post-appointment qualification cannot cure failure to meet prescribed eligibility requirements at recruitment.

The first respondent was appointed as an Assistant Master in English at the second respondent-school following an interview on 9 December 2013. The prescribed qualification was a B.A. and B.Ed. in English. At the time of the notification, interview and appointment, her B.Ed. was from Bharatiya Shiksha Parishath, which was not a recognised university; she later obtained a B.Ed. from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University in 2015–16.

The appellants rejected approval of her appointment in 2019. The Single Judge quashed that rejection and directed reconsideration on the basis that she possessed the requisite qualifications. The State appealed. The employee also filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Single Judge’s order.

The governing requirement was the qualification prescribed in the 13 November 2013 notification: a B.A. and B.Ed. in English.

The Court treated possession of the recognised qualification at the time of notification, interview and appointment as material to eligibility for appointment; a qualification acquired subsequently did not establish that the candidate possessed the required qualification at those earlier dates.

The Court found it undisputed that the employee’s B.Ed. was not from a recognised university when the notification was issued, when she was interviewed and when she was appointed. The committee report’s reference to her later qualification did not alter that position.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Single Judge’s direction could not be sustained. It nevertheless left open the employee’s right to claim salary from the school that had appointed her and submitted her appointment for approval.

In light of the appellate judgment, the contempt petition was closed.