Presence of State Official in Selection Committee Precludes State from Contesting Appointee’s Educational Qualifications

The appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers (Physical Education and Hindi) in a non-aided school (Respondent No. 2) in 2005 through a selection committee that included a State official

In 2007, the State resolved to provide salary grants to the school, requiring regularization and review of staff qualifications

The State refused to regularize the appellants, claiming the Physical Education teacher lacked a Master’s degree on the date of the advertisement

the Hindi teacher lacked the additional "ability to teach Psychology" mentioned in the advertisement

The Education Tribunal and a Single Judge of the High Court upheld the State’s rejection

Whether the State was justified in denying salary grants and regularization on the ground that the appellants were not duly qualified at the time of recruitment

Whether the possession of a requisite degree before the date of appointment (but after the advertisement) and the lack of a "superfluous" secondary qualification (Psychology) constitute valid grounds for disqualification

The Court applied principles of Administrative Law regarding the reasonableness of eligibility criteria and the finality of selection processes involving State representatives.

doctrine of substantial compliance regarding educational qualifications, where possessing a degree by the date of appointment satisfies the intent of the recruitment even if technical dates differ

the court emphasized that auxiliary or "superfluous" requirements in a job notification cannot override the primary subject-matter qualifications for a post

The presence of a State official in the selection committee creates a presupposition of valid scrutiny of qualifications

The Court noted that the Physical Education teacher (LPA 904/2022) was in his final year of Master’s at the time of advertisement and obtained the degree 15 days later, well before his actual appointment

For the Hindi teacher (LPA 905/2022), the Court held that since the primary role was to teach Hindi, the "ability to teach Psychology" was a "superfluous necessity" and should not have been a ground for rejection, especially since the candidate had studied Psychology for two years during his Bachelor's

Crucially, the Court found that because an official from the Secondary Education Board was part of the original selection committee, the State could not later claim the candidates were unqualified, as their credentials were vetted at the time of entry

It held that the State’s refusal to regularize the services was unsustainable

the Court directed that the appellants be regularized with effect from 2012 for the purpose of seniority and terminal benefits, but financial benefits (salary grants/arrears) would only be payable from the year 2021 when they approached the Court