Courts cannot recognize equivalent educational qualifications where governing service rules prescribe none.

The petitioners challenged the rejection of their candidature for the post of Assistant Teacher (Male/Female), Trained Graduate Grade (Computer), pursuant to Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2025, on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed qualification of B.Tech./B.E. in Computer Science or one of the other expressly specified qualifications.

The petitioners contended that a B.Tech. in Information Technology was academically equivalent to a B.Tech. in Computer Science because both courses included substantial study of programming, databases, software engineering, operating systems, networking and allied computer disciplines.

Reliance was placed on the Government notification dated 6 October 2021 concerning difficulties in determining equivalence of qualifications in Engineering and Technology.

The Court permitted the petitioners to provisionally appear in the main examination scheduled for 16 August 2026 and directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Secondary Education, to disclose the Government’s policy regarding equivalent qualifications.

The State subsequently informed the Court that, pursuant to recommendations of an Inter-Departmental Committee constituted by Government Order dated 26 April 2023, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Category) Service (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2024 had been promulgated on 30 January 2025, and that equivalence in all subjects had been abolished.

The advertisement likewise did not provide for consideration of equivalent qualifications.

1. Whether a degree of B.Tech. in Information Technology could be treated as equivalent to the expressly prescribed qualification of B.Tech./B.E. in Computer Science for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Computer)?

2. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could determine the academic equivalence of qualifications when the governing service rules and advertisement did not recognise such equivalence?

3. Whether the petitioners were eligible for consideration for the post despite not possessing one of the qualifications expressly prescribed under the 2024 Rules and the advertisement?

The Court applied the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2024, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

Under the amended Rules, the qualification for Assistant Teacher (Computer) consisted of B.Tech./B.E. in Computer Science, graduation in Computer Science, graduation in Computer Application, graduation with an ‘A’ Level course from NIELIT, or the specified combination of B.Tech. and MCA in Computer Science; no equivalent qualification was included.

The Court further applied the principle that determination of academic equivalence is an expert and policy matter, and that the High Court, exercising judicial review under Article 226, cannot itself act as an academic expert or substitute its assessment for that of the competent rule-making or expert authority.

The recruiting Commission was also required to adhere to the qualifications specified in the governing Rules and advertisement and could not independently introduce an equivalent qualification.

The Court noted that although the petitioners asserted substantial overlap between Information Technology and Computer Science curricula, the governing 2024 Rules expressly prescribed the qualifications for Assistant Teacher (Computer) and did not recognise any equivalent subject or degree.

The State had specifically addressed the issue through the Inter-Departmental Committee and subsequent amendment of the Rules, under which equivalence in all subjects had been abolished.

Since the advertisement also confined eligibility to the qualifications stated in the Rules, the Commission could not enlarge the eligibility conditions without compromising transparency and fairness to candidates who had relied on the advertised requirements.

The Court therefore declined to determine whether B.Tech. (Information Technology) was academically equivalent to B.Tech. (Computer Science), holding that such determination lay outside its adjudicatory function under Article 226.

The petitioners consequently lacked the prescribed eligibility for the post of Assistant Teacher, Trained Graduate Grade (Computer).

No relief was granted, and the writ petition was consigned to the record.