An employer must consider equivalent qualifications where recruitment rules expressly permit equivalence.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing it to consider Saurabh Vyas for the post of Primary Teacher (Music).

The recruitment rules required a Bachelor Degree in Music “or equivalent,” while the advertisement stated that candidates possessing a Diploma in Music were not eligible.

Vyas held a B.Com degree and a Diploma in Music from Raja Mansingh Tomar Music and Arts University. The university, in an RTI response, stated that a music diploma combined with a graduation degree in any subject was equivalent to a Bachelor Degree in Music.

KVS rejected his candidature, alleging that he lacked the essential qualification and had supplied false information.

The Tribunal allowed Vyas’s application, and KVS brought the present petition.

1. Whether Vyas’s B.Com degree and Diploma in Music constituted an equivalent qualification under the recruitment rules, notwithstanding the advertisement’s exclusion of Diploma holders.

2. Whether Vyas had provided false information in his application warranting rejection of his candidature.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s reliance on the Bhairvi Kumari decision was improper because an SLP against that decision was pending, and whether the Tribunal’s order warranted interference under Article 227.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the basis for the High Court’s supervisory review of the Tribunal’s order.

The recruitment rules required a Bachelor Degree in Music “or equivalent”; the Court treated “or equivalent” as permitting consideration of qualifications other than a conventional Bachelor Degree in Music.

The Court applied the principles of fair and consistent treatment, holding that an employer should not accept the same qualification for some candidates but reject it for a similarly placed candidate under unchanged rules.

It also relied on State of Bihar & Others v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. & Others, (2005) 9 SCC 129, concerning equivalent and higher qualifications.

A pending SLP does not, by itself, displace a High Court judgment; absent a stay, the judgment remains operative.

The Court read the recruitment rules’ express reference to an “equivalent” qualification together with the university’s unrebutted statement that Vyas’s B.Com degree and music diploma were equivalent to a Bachelor Degree in Music.

It construed the advertisement’s diploma exclusion as applying to a candidate holding only a diploma, not to Vyas, who also held a graduation degree.

KVS had accepted the same qualifications when Vyas applied in 2018 and had appointed other candidates with graduation degrees in other subjects and music diplomas; rejecting Vyas under unchanged rules was therefore inconsistent and unequal treatment.

The application’s “Equivalent Qualification” section and the NIC email supported Vyas’s account of what he had declared, while KVS produced no sufficient evidence of interpolation or fraud.

The pending SLP did not invalidate the Bhairvi Kumari judgment in the absence of a stay, and the Court found no legal defect in the Tribunal’s decision warranting supervisory interference.

It directed KVS to implement the Tribunal’s directions and consider Vyas’s candidature as a selected candidate within 60 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Vyas was to receive normal service benefits, including seniority and salary fixation from the date candidates below him were appointed, but no actual salary for the past period.

No order as to costs was made, and pending applications were disposed of.