On 12th October 2020 the Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand Yadav Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh comprising of a three Bench Judge of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose, and Krishna Murari observed Matters of education must be left to educationists, while setting aside the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad further held that a person who has qualified M.Ed. could not be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Education.
Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection Commission(UPHESSC) had invited applications for the post of Assistant Professors in various subjects, including 'Education'. Later, the UPHESSC issued a corrigendum that clarified M.Ed. degree can be treated as an equivalent degree to M.A. (Education) for the purposes of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The High Court, allowing the writ petition filed by a few candidates, quashed the corrigendum and observed that while M.A. (Education) is a master's degree in the subject concerned, M.Ed. is not so, as it is only a training qualification.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr. P.S. Patwalia submitted that the interest of the appellants was only in participating in the 2016 selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in Education, for which the last date of application was 14.7.2016 and for which the corrigendum had been issued on 11.7.2016.
The NCTE in their counter affidavit submitted that the M.Ed programme is a specifically designed as a practitioner’s degree, for students who wish to acquire the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to work in a professional field. As a professional degree, the M.Ed. is intended for students who wish, upon graduation, to assume positions of leadership in a practical setting or positions requiring more advanced study than that available at the bachelor’s level (e.g., as an instructional technologist or as a district resource teacher). The M.Ed. is not a research degree in the sense that the student is not required to carry out and defend an independent research project. However, the M.Ed. programme is nevertheless research-based in that consideration of educationally relevant research constitutes a major focus of study and students are normally required to take a number of research-relevant courses (e.g., statistics courses) whereas MA Degree is mainly intended for students interested in conducting a research study or who wish, upon graduation, to assume a research position or to proceed to doctoral level studies. Accordingly, the M.A. programme is designed specifically as a research degree, with students required to carry out and complete an independent research project (Master’s Thesis). Completion of a master’s thesis is viewed as a pre-requisite for the pursuit of doctoral studies in most institutions.
“There is no doubt about the M.Ed. degree is a post-graduate degree, in view of not only what the UGC stated before us, but having promulgated the relevant Regulations as far back as 2010 as amended from time to time. The issue of equivalence has been rightly considered by the NCTE and while recognising some distinct aspects of two the degrees, it has clearly stated that for the job of Assistant Professors (Education), both are eligible.”
-Observed the Court.
The Court even said:
We may notice that it is not as if a person with an M.Ed. degree is eligible for all the posts which were advertised for Science, Arts and others. Their eligibility has been found only for the post of Assistant Professor (Education), which is directly relatable to the subject to be taught. We do not think the fact that both M.Ed. and M.A. (Education) degree-holders have to take a common test for the purposes of NET is conclusive, but it is one of the factors to be considered, and once the expert body being the NCTE, inter alia, has taken that aspect into consideration apart from other factors to opine equivalence for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Education, it would not be appropriate to take a contra view.
The court noted that UPHESSC had sought the opinion of the expert panel, and thereafter took a decision, permitting M.Ed. degree as an eligible qualification for appointment. The bench While setting aside the order passed by the High Court remarked:
“We say so in view of the fact that matters of education must be left to educationists, of course, subject to being governed by the relevant statutes and regulations. It is not the function of this Court to sit as an expert body over the decision of the experts, especially when the experts are all eminent people as apparent from the names as set out. This aspect has received judicial imprimatur even earlier and it is not that we are saying something new.”
The SC even noted that the result having already been computed and awaiting declaration should now be declared forthwith so that persons looking for employment, as per the requisite eligibility criteria, can be employed, and so that the students have the benefit of education from the persons so employed.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
