Possession of concurrent degrees from regular and distance modes is not a disqualification unless expressly prohibited in recruitment advertisements.

The Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (English) pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.03.2019 issued by the Directorate of Public Instruction

On 19.11.2020, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she obtained two degrees in the same academic year (2012): a regular B.Ed. and the first year of an M.A. in English through distance learning

The State contended that Ordinance 6 of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, prohibits appearing in more than one degree examination in the same academic year

The Petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that distance and regular modes do not overlap and that the University Grants Commission (UGC) permits such dual courses

1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature due to pursuing two degrees simultaneously (one regular and one distance) is legally sustainable when such a disqualification was not stipulated in the recruitment advertisement?

2. Whether the guidelines issued by the UGC permit the concurrent pursuit of a regular degree and a distance learning degree?

The Court applied the principle that eligibility criteria cannot be altered post-advertisement (post hoc), as doing so violates natural justice

It relied on the University Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines (2012 and 2022), which expressly permit a student to pursue one regular academic programme concurrently with another in distance or online mode

Additionally, the court examined Ordinance 6 (Examination – General), para 16, of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, but determined it could not override the specific terms of a recruitment advertisement or central UGC norms

The Court reasoned that the recruitment advertisement only required a postgraduate degree and a B.Ed., without stipulating that they could not be obtained in the same year

By introducing this disqualification later, the Respondents illegally altered the eligibility criteria

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Petitioner complied with UGC norms by pursuing the M.A. via distance learning while attending B.Ed. as a regular student

The Court found the State's reliance on Ordinance 6 of the 1973 Act misplaced, as it could not supersede the express terms of the advertisement or the prevailing UGC guidelines that legitimize dual-mode education

Consequently, the rejection was deemed arbitrary and contrary to recognized academic norms

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the rejection of the Petitioner's candidature... The Respondents were directed to reconsider the Petitioner’s appointment for the post of Lecturer (English) afresh within sixty days, strictly according to the advertisement and UGC guidelines