Post-Graduate Degree Validity for Merit-Based Recruitment and Employment Eligibility In Future Vacancies

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the non-consideration of her Master of Arts (MA) degree for the purpose of recruitment to a teaching post under the Commissioner of Schools, Gujarat.

During the pendency of the petition, the Court directed the respondent authority to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of the precedent set in Letters Patent Appeal No. 166 of 2023, where a similar post-graduation qualification was directed to be treated as valid.

Following this interim direction, the respondent authority evaluated the petitioner’s original documents on February 23, 2026, and submitted a report on March 7, 2026.

While the authority accepted the validity of the petitioner’s MA degree, the subsequent merit calculation revealed that the petitioner still did not meet the requisite cut-off marks for appointment.

Whether the petitioner's Post-Graduate (MA) degree is valid for the purpose of calculating merit marks for appointment.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to an appointment based on her position in the revised merit list.

The Court applied the principle of stare decisis regarding the validity of educational qualifications as established in the Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 166 of 2023 (arising from Special Civil Application No. 10700 of 2021), which serves as a binding precedent for treating specific post-graduation qualifications as valid for recruitment.

The court also adhered to the principle that an appointment can only be granted if a candidate meets the objective merit criteria (cut-off) established for the recruitment process.

The Court facilitated a re-evaluation process where the respondent authority was directed to treat the petitioner’s MA degree as a valid qualification based on the ratio in the aforementioned Letters Patent Appeal.

Upon this re-evaluation, the respondent authority officially recognized the validity of the degree and included the marks associated with it in the petitioner's total score.

However, the Court observed that even after the inclusion of these marks, the petitioner failed to secure the minimum merit marks required for the post.

Consequently, the Court found that while the legal grievance regarding the validity of the degree was resolved in favor of the petitioner, no factual basis existed to grant the relief of appointment.

However, since the petitioner was not found meritorious even after adding the MA marks, she was not entitled to appointment for the current post.

On the instructions of the petitioner, the advocate did not press the petitions further.

The petitions were disposed of as not pressed, and the notices were discharged.