Recruitment must be governed by educational qualifications existing in statutory rules on the date of advertisement.

In January 2019, the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) advertised posts for Superintendent, Central Prison (Class-I). The statutory Recruitment Rules, 2016, and the advertisement required a "degree with first class" from a recognized university.

The appellant, holding a B.A. (Second Class) and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) (First Class) from IGNOU, applied.

While he qualified in the preliminary exam, the GPSC withheld his physical standard test call letter, effectively rejecting his candidature on educational grounds.

During the pendency of a writ petition, the court permitted his interview; a sealed cover revealed he secured the highest marks in the merit category.

The State argued that a 2019 rule amendment (changing "degree" to "Bachelor’s degree") and expert opinions rendered his B.Ed. (a "second/professional degree") invalid for the post.

The Single Judge dismissed the petition, leading to this appeal.

The court applied the "vested right" principle and the doctrine against "shifting the goalposts," establishing that recruitment must follow the rules existing on the date of advertisement unless an amendment is expressly retrospective.

It relied on the Prisons Act and the Superintendent, Central Prison and Superintendent Porbandar Special Prison Class-I Recruitment Rules, 2016, which prescribed a "degree with first class".

The court further upheld the statutory authority of Universities established under Central/State Acts (like the IGNOU Act) to confer "Degrees" as defined under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

The court reasoned that since the January 2019 advertisement was based on the 2016 Rules requiring any "degree," the August 2019 amendment requiring a "Bachelor’s degree" could not be applied retrospectively to non-suit the appellant.

Even if the amendment applied, the court found the appellant’s B.Ed. certificate explicitly titled "Bachelor of Education," satisfying the requirement of a "Bachelor's degree".

The court rejected the State’s attempt to create an artificial distinction between "professional" and "academic" degrees, holding that if a statutory University grants a degree, the recruiting authority cannot unilaterally redefine or diminish its status.

It further dismissed the reliance on "expert opinions," noting that such opinions are for determining equivalence, which was unnecessary here because the rule was clear and did not specify a particular subject or duration of study.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s order. It directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the appellant (who ranked first in merit) within six weeks, utilizing the post previously kept vacant by interim order.