Dual degrees pursued simultaneously through regular and distance modes are valid retrospectively for public employment.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the State could validly reject the candidature of candidates who obtained two degrees (one regular, one distance/private) in the same academic year prior to April 2022.

The court held

The court held that dual degrees obtained in the same session (one regular and one distance) prior to 13.04.2022 are valid for appointment.

It also directed

The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned rejection letters and notices, including Letter No. 1584 dated 12.06.2024. The JSSC was directed to recommend the cases of each petitioner for appointment to the State Government, and the State was directed to issue appointment letters accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioners applied for the post of "Post Graduate Trained Teacher" under Advertisement No. 02/2023 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC). Upon being declared successful, their candidatures were rejected or stalled during document verification on the ground that they had pursued two academic degrees (typically a Master’s degree and a B.Ed.) in the same academic session.

pp. 15-16

The State authorities, via Letter No. 1584 dated 12.06.2024, maintained that dual degrees would only be recognized prospectively from 13.04.2022, following earlier UGC guidelines.

p. 13, 22

The petitioners challenged this retrospective exclusion, citing University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations and clarifications that allow such dual qualifications.

pp. 17-21

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State could validly reject the candidature of candidates who obtained two degrees (one regular, one distance/private) in the same academic year prior to April 2022.

p. 14 / para. 5

ii.2. Whether the guidelines issued by the UGC regarding dual degrees carry a binding statutory force on the State and the JSSC.

p. 23 / para. 35

03Law Applied

Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which empowers the UGC to determine and maintain standards of university education.

p. 18, 23

The precedent set in Praneeth K. v. UGC (2021) 14 SCC 241, which held that UGC guidelines issued under Section 12 are statutory and binding, prevailing over State powers under Entry 66 of List I.

pp. 23-24

The principle from Kuldip Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. (2016) 3 SCC 521, stating that in the absence of a specific prohibitory regulation, a candidate cannot be penalized for enhancing their qualifications through dual degrees.

p. 26

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 Section 12 Section 22

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that since the UGC is the apex body for coordinating educational standards, its decision to recognize dual degrees—formalized in various meetings since 2012 and 2020—must be upheld.

pp. 19-20

Crucially, the court noted that the UGC's partial modification dated 05.06.2025 explicitly clarified that dual degrees pursued simultaneously prior to the 2022 guidelines shall be treated as "valid" provided they met other regulatory norms.

p. 21

The court found that the State Government's insistence on prospective application (post-13.04.2022) ignored this subsequent retrospective clarification.

p. 22

The court observed that neither the Recruitment Rules of 2012 nor any existing regulation prohibited a student from pursuing one regular and one distance course simultaneously.

pp. 25-27

Therefore, the State’s action was deemed arbitrary and a violation of the binding standards set by the UGC.

p. 24, 27