Courts cannot grant transitional relaxation from mandatory prescribed qualifications for recruitment.

The petitioner, a B.Sc. (Agriculture) graduate who was pursuing a B.Ed. degree, sought permission to apply provisionally for the post of Teacher (Agriculture) in the ongoing 2026 recruitment process.

He requested that the respondents accept his online application despite the formal B.Ed. degree not yet having been awarded, issue him an admit card, and permit him to participate provisionally in the written examination scheduled for 25 October 2026, subject to subsequent verification of his qualification.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the issue had already been decided by the High Court in Vishnu Ditya & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 6260 of 2026, decided on 20 August 2026.

It was submitted that the petitioner’s case was factually and legally identical to that decision.

Whether the petitioner, who had not yet obtained the formal B.Ed. qualification, could be permitted to participate provisionally in the 2026 recruitment process for Teacher (Agriculture)?

Whether the Court could grant a one-time or transitional relaxation from the prescribed B.Ed. qualification through a writ order?

The Court applied the principle that eligibility criteria, minimum educational qualifications, and service conditions fall within the domain of the competent rule-making authority or the State Government, and courts ordinarily cannot waive or relax mandatory qualifications to accommodate individual candidates.

It relied on the earlier decision in Vishnu Ditya & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh, which held that, after the earlier exemption from the B.Ed. qualification had been declared unconstitutional and the State had been directed to prescribe the qualification in accordance with the NCTE Regulations, 2014, candidates could not claim a right to participate without possessing the qualification prescribed under the prevailing rules.

The Court also followed the binding effect of the Division Bench decision in Ashokanand Patel and held that judicially granting a transitional relaxation would impermissibly create an exception to the prescribed qualification.

The petitioner’s claim was not that the B.Ed. requirement was unconstitutional or beyond the State’s authority; rather, he sought provisional participation until he obtained the formal degree.

However, the Court found that this request was substantively the same as the transitional relaxation rejected in Vishnu Ditya.

Since possession of the B.Ed. qualification was mandatory under the prevailing recruitment framework, permitting provisional participation would effectively dilute or waive the prescribed eligibility condition.

The Court therefore declined to take a view different from the one already adopted in the identical case.

Following the order dated 20 August 2026 in WPS No. 6260 of 2026, the writ petition was dismissed in the same terms at the motion stage.