Higher qualification in relevant subject must be considered for merit calculation despite lack of professional degree nomenclature.

The petitioner applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak (Physical Education) in Government Higher Secondary Schools under a 2013 advertisement.

Having qualified, he was placed at Sr. No. 2 in the merit list with 65.05 marks and called for document verification on 01/07/2013.

Subsequently, the Respondent No. 3 orally informed him that his candidature was rejected because his marks were recalculated and reduced to 58.13.

The authorities claimed that the weightage for his Master of Physical Education (M.P.E.) degree should be 5% instead of 10% and that his M.Phil. degree marks should be excluded as it was not definitively a "professional subject".

The petitioner challenged this denial of appointment via Article 226.

1. Whether the respondent authority was justified in reducing the weightage of the petitioner’s postgraduate degree from 10% to 5% under the recruitment rules.

2. Whether the degree of M.Phil. in Physical Education ought to be considered a professional qualification for the purpose of awarding weightage marks.

3. Whether the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of appointment after being formally selected and placed in the merit list.

The court applied Rule 11 of the Government Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2012, which mandates a selection weightage of 70% for TAT marks and 30% for educational qualifications.

Appendix-I, Item 1 (for Higher Secondary Teachers) prescribes 10% weightage for a Post Graduate degree in the concerned subject and 5% for a Post Graduate degree in a professional subject (M.Ed./M.P.Ed.).

The court also relied on Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 3 SCC 129 regarding the "reasonable expectation" of a provisionally selected candidate.

Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2015) 17 SCC 709, establishing that ambiguities in qualification criteria must benefit the candidate.

The court found that since the petitioner applied for a Higher Secondary post, Appendix-I (Item 1) applied, and the authorities had initially correctly calculated 10% weightage for his M.P.E. degree.

Regarding the M.Phil. degree, the court noted it is a higher qualification than M.P.E., requiring a Master's degree for admission.

The State's own communication dated 07/02/2014 showed internal ambiguity on whether M.Phil. constituted a "professional subject".

Applying the principle from Parvaiz Ahmad Parry, the court reasoned that such ambiguity in the rules or advertisement must be resolved in favor of the candidate.

Furthermore, following Chandrakala Trivedi, since the petitioner was already meritorious and placed Sr. No. 2, he possessed a legitimate expectation of appointment which could not be arbitrarily denied through retrospective recalculation based on vague interpretations.