Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court by which the Division Bench of the High Court has confirmed the judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions.
Brief Facts:
The J.S.S.C. after receiving the request, started the selection process for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers (P.G.T.T.) in the State of Jharkhand in different subjects, i.e., Chemistry, Physics, History etc. Accordingly, advertisement was issued by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates for considering their candidature for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers. As per the advertisement, the eligibility criteria for the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers in the subject History was that a candidate must have obtained a Postgraduate degree with 50% marks in the related subjects (in the subject of History). Pursuant to the advertisement, the respective original writ petitioners applied for the said posts. At the time of verification of the testimonials, the respective original writ petitioners submitted their Postgraduate degree certificates. It was found that the respective original writ petitioners had Postgraduate degrees in one of branches of History in place of History as a whole and, therefore, showcause notices were issued to them by J.S.S.C. to show-cause why their candidatures may not be cancelled as they failed to submit the certificate of Master of Arts (Postgraduation) with the subject “History”. The original writ petitioners preferred letters patent appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the advertisements itself were confusing. It was submitted that on a conjoint reading of the post which had to be filled and the minimum educational qualifications prescribed, it is clear that Graduation in related subject with minimum 45 per cent marks was the requisite qualification.
It was submitted that the papers pursued by the petitioners are in “History”. The petitioners also studied Political Science in their Graduation. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have rejected the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that they did not have the requisite qualifications as per the advertisement. It was further submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that so far as G.T.T. candidates are concerned, no Expert Committee was constituted to consider the educational qualifications obtained by them.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the advertisement both for the posts of P.G.T.T. as well as G.T.T., the candidate must have obtained Masters/Bachelor degree in ‘History’ and in case of G.T.T. with Political Science with 45 per cent marks in any one of the subjects. Therefore, obtaining the Postgraduate degree/Bachelor degree in History as a whole is a must.
It was urged that even an Expert Committee was constituted by the State Government on the request made by the J.S.S.C. and it opined that the degrees obtained by the respective writ petitioners cannot be said to be obtaining / having a Postgraduate degree in the subject “History”. It was contended that the learned Single Judge as well as the High Court have rightly refused to grant any relief in favour of the original writ petitioners on the ground that they cannot be said to be having the requisite qualifications as per the advertisement.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that as per the advertisement, a candidate must have the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in the subject History. So far as the G.T.T. is concerned, the educational qualifications required was Bachelor degree in ‘History’ as well as Political Science as the requirement was for History/Civics. Therefore, for both the posts namely the Postgraduate Trained Teachers (History) and Graduate Trained Teachers (History/Civics), a candidate must have the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in ‘History’ as a whole.
SC noted that even at the request of J.S.S.C. the question, whether, the degrees obtained by the respective petitioners in one branch of History can be said to be sufficient compliance as per the advertisement and can be said to be obtaining a degree in History came to be considered by the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has opined that the degrees obtained by the respective candidates/petitioners in one branch of History cannot be said to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole and therefore they cannot be said to be having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement.
SC stated that as per the settled proposition of law, in the field of education, the Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate is possessing the requisite qualification should better be left to the educational institutions, more particularly, when the Expert Committee considers the matter.
SC observed that the educational qualifications required has been specifically mentioned in the advertisement. There is no ambiguity and/or confusion in the advertisement providing educational qualification and the post for which the applications were invited (History/Civics).
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “we see no reason to interfere with the common judgments and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The candidature/selection of the respective petitioners are rightly cancelled on the ground that they were not having the requisite qualification for the post – Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History as per the advertisement. In view of the above, all the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.”
Case Title: Ram Byas Pandey & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Bench: J. M.R. Shah and J. B.V. Nagarathna
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2217-2218 OF 2022
Decided on: 13th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
