Vatsala Jaiswal And 9 Others vs State Of U P And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 313 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 

 
Reserved On: 17 December 2020
 
Delivered  On:  07 January 2021
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11237 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Vatsala Jaiswal And 9 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,M.N. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.

The Court has heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Seemant Singh for the petitioners, Sri Avneesh Tripathi who has addressed submissions on behalf of the Commission and Sri Piyush Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

All the petitioners had participated in a selection process initiated by the respondents for appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in English. It is their case that they were initially permitted by the respondents to participate in the recruitment exercise. According to the petitioners, at the stage of document verification the testimonials submitted by them online were not accepted by the respondents and they all received error messages of either having entered an invalid roll number or password. Upon enquiries being made they were apprised that all of them were found to be ineligible since they did not possess the essential qualification as stipulated in the advertisement. The advertisement required all applicants applying for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in English to hold a Graduate degree in "English Literature" conferred by a University duly established by law or such other degree which may have been recognized by the State as being equivalent thereto. It is the conceded position that none of the petitioners hold a Graduate degree in English Literature nor did they pursue a course of study in that subject at the graduation stage. Their challenge to the exclusion of their candidature rests on the Master's degree conferred on them at which stage they did have English Literature as the primary subject. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that it is contended that the petitioners who hold a superior or advanced degree in the subject of English Literature have been wrongly denied the right to seek appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in English.

Assailing the decision of the respondents Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel, has contended that since all of the petitioners have obtained their Master's degree in English Literature, a degree which is liable to be recognized as superior or at least a qualification higher to that of a Bachelor's degree in the same subject, they must be recognized as fulfilling the essential requirement as placed in the advertisement. Sri Khare has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir And Others1, Jyoti K.K. And Others Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others2 as also its decision in State of Uttarakhand And Others Vs. Deep Chandra Tewari and Another3 in support of his submission that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the candidate fulfilling the requirement of possessing a lower qualification and in any case evidences the candidates' eligibility for appointment. Sri Khare submits that a higher qualification can never be viewed as a disqualification for appointment especially in a case where such higher qualification has not been specifically excluded.

It becomes pertinent to note that two major hurdles stood in the way of acceptance of the aforesaid submissions. The attention of the learned Senior Counsel was invited to the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Court in Deepak Singh and 9 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 8 Others4 as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in Asheesh Kumar and 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others5. Both in Deepak Singh and Asheesh Kumar, the Court was called upon to deal with an identical submission of a higher qualification being viewed as sufficient evidence of eligibility of candidates. Sri Khare sought to distinguish the judgment of the Full Bench in Deepak Singh by contending that the principal issue which fell for consideration of the Full Bench was the claim of eligibility as raised by candidates holding a degree in Engineering whereas the requirement in the advertisement was of a Diploma in that field. According to Sri Khare the judgment of the Full Bench in Deepak Singh merely holds that there was no equivalency between a Degree and Diploma in Engineering and it was in that backdrop that the Full Bench held that the degree holders were ineligible to participate in the selection process and had been rightly excluded from the zone of consideration. Dealing with the decision rendered by this Court in Asheesh Kumar, Sri Khare submitted that the said decision was rendered in the backdrop of the absence of a stipulation in the advertisement in terms of which a degree equivalent to that prescribed may have been taken into consideration. Sri Khare submits that to the contrary, the pre-requisite as prescribed in the advertisement which forms subject matter of the present petition clearly brings within its scope degrees which may have been recognized as equivalent to that of a Bachelor's degree in English Literature and viewed in that light the decision in Asheesh Kumar is clearly distinguishable.

Sri Khare additionally relied upon the certifications issued by certain Universities from which the petitioners have obtained their Graduation degrees which according to him clearly establish and settle any doubt with regard to equivalency between a course of study in English Language and Literature. He submits that in view of these certifications and in the absence of any contrary decision taken by the respondents the petitioners have been wrongfully excluded. Sri Khare lastly assails the action of the respondents in having failed to address the issue of equivalency prior to the commencement of the selection process and submitted that the respondents were obliged to rule on that issue before holding the petitioners' ineligible to seek appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in English.

Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel representing the Commission submitted that the decisions in Deepak Singh and Asheesh Kumar had in unambiguous terms negatived identical contentions and were therefore authoritative pronouncements sufficient to negate the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and noted above. Additionally, Sri Tripathi has placed reliance upon the following three decisions: (A) Km. Deoki Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Others6, (B) Dr. Upendra Kumar Kanaujia Vs. Chancellor/His Excellency Governor of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Others7 and (C) an order passed on a Review Application8 moved in Professor Madan Mohan Rajput Vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others9.

At the outset and before proceeding to deal with the rival submissions, it becomes pertinent to note that the decisions cited by Sri Tripathi do not appear to bear any relevance to the questions which arise. Km. Deoki Verma was dealing with the issue of whether a person claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher in the L.T. Grade must possess the requisite qualification in the subject concerned. Answering that question, the Division Bench held that it was incumbent upon the person seeking promotion to possess the requisite educational qualification as prescribed for the Assistant Teacher whose vacancy was sought to be filled. In Dr. Upendra Kumar Kanaujia the Division Bench found that the petitioner there did not possess the essential qualification of having a Master's degree in Ancient History. Similarly, the order of the Division Bench on the Review Application moved in Professor Madan Mohan Rajput essentially deals with the scope of the review power conferred on courts. This Court fails to find any observation or recital in those decisions which may be viewed as having relevance to or bearing upon the questions which arise here.

At the outset the Court proposes to deal with the submission of Sri Khare of it being incumbent upon the respondents to have decided the issue of equivalence before commencement of the recruitment process. The Court notes that the advertisement in unambiguous terms stipulated that all candidates must possess a Graduation degree in English Literature or hold a degree recognized by the State as equivalent thereto. The petitioners have not relied upon any decision of the State which may have recognized a Graduation degree in English Language or Literature to be equivalent.

The petitioners fundamentally place reliance upon certain certificates issued by the Universities from which they obtained their Bachelor's degree in support of their stand that the said degree in English Language did clothe them with the requisite eligibility to be considered for selection and appointment. It becomes pertinent to observe that it is not very clear from the record whether these certificates were ever placed before the respondents for their consideration prior to the filing of the present writ petition. However, it is amply clear that at the time when the petitioners took part in the selection process, they were fully aware of the fact that the advertisement in unambiguous terms placed a requirement of a candidate possessing a Bachelor's degree in "English Literature" as distinct from "English Language". They also did not rest their candidature on any preexisting decision of the State Government holding a Bachelor's degree in English Language and Literature to be equivalent. In the considered view of this Court, in light of the aforesaid factual position which obtained at the commencement of the recruitment process, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have obtained a clarification in this respect before proceeding further and participating in the selection process. The mere fact that the petitioners were permitted by the respondents to participate in the selection process initially cannot be countenanced as a factor which created any vested rights in their favour or one which may be recognized as creating an estoppel against the respondents.

Alternatively, it was also open to the petitioners to have either obtained a requisite judicial declaration with regard to their eligibility or a mandate commanding the respondents to take a decision on equivalence before proceeding with the recruitment exercise. The petitioners chose not to adopt either of the measures noted above and took a chance by participating in the selection process. Having failed to do so, the Court finds no merit in the challenge raised on this score by the petitioners especially at this stage and upon the culmination of the entire selection process. The Court also bears in mind the reliefs as framed in the petition which establishes that the writ petitioners do not assail the entire selection process on this score. The only relief claimed is for the inclusion of the petitioners in the process of selection and for the evaluation of their candidature on merits.

In any case a failure on the part of the State to have ruled on the issue of equivalence cannot possibly lead this Court to conclude that the petitioners were otherwise eligible nor does it detract from the factual position which is otherwise shown to exist and prevail. The contention addressed in this regard in any case begs the more fundamental question of whether the petitioners were in fact eligible to be considered for selection and appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in English notwithstanding they not possessing a Graduate degree in English Literature. That is an issue which the Court now proceeds to consider and rule upon.

Coming to the primary issue of whether the petitioners were entitled to be recognized as eligible for appointment on the strength of their Master's degree in English Literature the Court notes that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jyoti KK, Parvaiz Ahmad Parry and Deep Chandra Tewari were duly noticed and explained by the Full Bench of the Court in Deepak Singh.

Evaluating the correctness of the submission addressed on the strength of the decision in Jyoti K.K., the Full Bench observed thus:

"The Court also noted that there was no exclusion to candidates to possess a higher qualification. The above referred decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned on the provisions of Rule 10 (a)(ii). In the present case, there is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In the present case, there being no such Rule, we are afraid that the presumption is not available to the petitioners."

The Full Bench as well as the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad10 noticed the decisive and distinctive feature in the backdrop of which certain observations came to be entered in that decision. Jyoti K.K. essentially rested upon the language of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958 which employed the words "..... qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the special rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post."

In the present case there is admittedly no executive decision holding a Graduate degree in English Language and Literature to be equivalent. More fundamentally, the petitioners have also failed to establish that holding a Master's degree in English Literature would compel one to conclude that possessing that qualification must necessarily lead to a presupposition that he had acquired the lower qualification.

Explaining the decision in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry, the Full Bench held:

"The next case relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, [2016 (1) ESC 54 (SC)]. In the said case, the matter related to appointment to the post of J & K Forest Service Range Officers, Grade-I, wherein the prescribed qualification was B.Sc. (Forestry) or its equivalent from any University recognised by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as the 'ICAR'). The appellants, in the said case, had a qualification of B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the major subjects and Master in Forestry i.e. M.Sc. (Forestry) on the date when he applied for the post in question, the Apex Court allowed the appeal holding as under:

"In our considered view, firstly, if there was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement, then it should have been clarified by the authority concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, then benefit should have been given to the candidate rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet we find that the appellant was admittedly having B.Sc. degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects in his graduation and further he was also having Masters degree in Forestry, i.e., M.Sc. (Forestry). In the light of these facts, we are of the view that the appellant was possessed of the prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and his application could not have been rejected treating him to be an ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed qualification.

In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess the required qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring higher qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the prescribed qualification. It was coupled with the fact that Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects in graduation, due to which he was able to do his Masters in Forestry."

The said case has no applicability to the facts of the present case inasmuch as Diploma in Engineering and B.Tech in Engineering are two different courses and thus the ratio of the judgement in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others has no applicability to the facts of the present case."

Apart from what was observed by the Full Bench and extracted above, as the facts of that decision would reveal, the Supreme Court held in favour of the candidates before it principally since they had Forestry as a subject both at the Graduate and Master's level.

Noticing the submissions addressed in the backdrop of Deep Chandra Tewari, the Full Bench observed:

"Although a question raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with regard to the difference in between B.Ed. with specialisation in vocational course and B.Ed. in specified subjects, the Supreme Court recorded the general principle as under:

"We are conscious of the principle that when particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. No doubt, normal rule would be that candidate with higher qualification is deemed to fulfil the lower qualification prescribed for a post. But that higher qualification has to be in the same channel. Further, this rule will be subject to an exception. Where the prescription of a particular qualification is found to be relevant for discharging the functions of that post and at the same time, the Government is able to demonstrate that for want of the said qualification a candidate may not be suitable for the post, even if he possesses a "better" qualification but that "better" qualification has no relevance with the function attached with the post."

The Apex Court, further, while allowing the appeal, held as under:

"In the present case, we find the situation falling in this excepted category. As pointed out above, the Assistant Teacher is meant to impart education to students at primary level. For teaching primary students, subjects studied while doing basic BEd degree would be relevant and appropriate. For teaching such students, BEd with specialisation in vocational education would be of no use as those students are not imparted vocational education, which is the thrust in the degree obtained by the respondents herein. In the instant case, proficiency in the basic subjects taught at primary level is required and thus vocational training would not serve any purpose. Thus, when we find that in the instant case, essential education qualification is BEd degree which is prescribed in the relevant rules, having statutory flavour, the action of the Government cannot be faulted with, in rejecting the candidature of the respondents because of the reason that they do not have the qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement viz. BEd degree simpliciter."

The above referred case relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare, in fact, strengthens the proposition that where the qualification is specified, there should be no deviation from the said specified requirement."

As noted by the Full Bench, Deep Chandra Tewari dealt with the issue of the higher qualification having been obtained "in the same channel" and what may be described as the "same line of progression". However as noted hereinbefore, none of the petitioners were shown to have taken English Literature as a subject at the Graduate stage. Consequently the Master's degree in English Literature cannot possibly be viewed as having been obtained in the same channel or line of progression.

Pausing here the Court also finds itself unable to accept the submission of Sri Khare that the decision in Deepak Singh is distinguishable and liable to be viewed as one dealing solely with the issue of equivalence between a Diploma and Degree in Engineering. While dealing with Question "C" and the question of equivalence of degrees and the scope of judicial review in such matters the Full Bench pertinently observed: -

"In view of the above referred judgements, we have no hesitation in holding that the State, as an employer, is well equipped to decide the desirable qualification or may prescribe additional qualification including any grant of preference. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility much less, it can go into the question of desirable qualification being at par with the essential qualification."

.......

"Testing the said arguments as raised by Sri Khare although on record no Rules have been placed, however, in view of the finding recorded by us that Diploma in Engineering is not the same as Bachelor in Engineering and also the finding recorded by us that the State is well equipped to prescribe the requisite required qualification keeping in view the requirement of posts for which the advertisements are issued, we hold that whether Diploma in Engineering is specified as a minimum qualification or a required qualification, Graduates in Engineering would not be entitled to be considered and will be out of zone of consideration unless a candidate possess both the qualifications to explain it further suppose a candidate after acquiring Diploma in Engineering also passes Graduation in Engineering he would be eligible, in view of the fact that he has Diploma in Engineering which is the required qualification for applying to the post and cannot be denied to participate only because he has any qualification additional to the prescribed qualification. However, the State Government is free to provide for equivalence as was done by the Kerala State while incorporating Rule 10(a)(ii). Since there is nothing on record in the present case to show that there was any Rule or Directive of the State Government to provide equivalence, it is only logical to conclude that degree holders are ineligible to participate in the selection process for Junior Engineer in the light of the specific provisions incorporated under the advertisement in question."

.......

"Coupled with the said fact, we have already held that it is the State Government which has the powers to prescribe the requisite qualification required for the efficient discharge of duties for the post for which the advertisement is issued and that being outside domain of judicial review as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra) and Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others (supra). We hold that the persons having PGDCA cannot be presumed to be having the qualification of 'O' level Diploma in Computer Application."

Dealing with identical submissions addressed in Asheesh Singh and after noticing the decisions rendered on the question of equivalence and suitability of qualifications prescribed, this Court observed thus:-

"That leaves the Court to consider the submission of it embarking upon an exercise to declare a degree in General English to be equivalent to the essential qualifications enumerated in the advertisement. The submission which is commended for acceptance would clearly amount to undertaking an exercise which would be legally impermissible and transgress the inherent limitations recognized by Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review as explained hereinafter.

The correctness of the submission advanced would essentially have to be tested bearing in mind the following cardinal principles. The prescription of a qualification is essentially and primarily a role reserved for the employer. It is not for this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to arrogate to itself that function. Similarly, it is neither the function nor the role of the Court to adjudge or assess the suitability or desirability of a particular qualification that may be stipulated. Lastly, it is not for Courts to assume upon themselves the authority to delve into questions of equivalence of degrees and educational qualifications. That function must necessarily stand reserved for the experts in the field namely the academicians.

The Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad [(2019) 2 SCC 404] reiterated these settled principles holding: -

"26. ...... The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench."

A similar note of restraint was entered in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade [(2019) 6 SCC 362

9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same."

More recently three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Anit Kumar Das [2020 SCC Online SC 897] observed:-

"21. Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications......"

The principles enunciated in Zahoor Ahmad and Maharashtra Public Service Commission were reiterated by a Full Bench of the Court in Deepak Singh Vs. State of U.P. [2019 SCC Online ALL 4471 (FB) where it observed:-

"52. Now we proceed to deal with the reference in the case of Himani Singh v. State of U.P., the advertisement in question prescribed the qualification of Graduate in Commerce ''O' level Diploma issued by any Government Recognised Institution. The petitioners were non-suited as they hold a Post-Graduate Diploma in Computer Application. Thus, the claim of the petitioners, before the learned Single Judge, was that their qualifications are superior to the prescribed qualification i.e. ''O' level Diploma in Computer Application. In the said case, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow had issued a Notification on 27.8.2018 notifying that the ''O' level Diploma in Computer Application had been specified as essential eligibility qualification and it further provided that there does not exist any Government Order specifying the equivalent of qualification with ''O' level Diploma in Computer Operation and that National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter referred to ''NIELIT'), earlier DOEAC Society had informed that apart from NIELIT no other institution was authorized to grant ''O' level Certificate in Computer Operation. The learned Single Judge, in his judgement dated 04.12.2018, rejected the contention of the petitioners therein relying upon the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19687 of 2018 (Yogendra Singh Rana v. State of U.P.). While dismissing the said writ petition, learned Single Judge held that the assessment with regard to the suitability of the higher qualification with a higher proficiency in the field of Computer Operation is in the field of policy and would not justify interference by the Writ Court. Before the Special Appeal Court, the petitioners had argued that the judgement of the Yogendra Rana (supra) is subject matter of pending appeal in which interim order has also been passed. It was thus argued before the Special Appeal Court that in view of decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra) and Parvez Ahmad Parry (supra), the matter requires to be considered by the larger Bench that is how the matter was referred vide order dated 15.2.2019.

As is evident from the extracted parts of the decision in Asheesh Singh, the Court did not hold against the petitioners there merely on account of the absence of a stipulation in the advertisement providing for equivalent degrees being also considered for the purposes of adjudging the eligibility of a candidate. It also dealt with the more fundamental issues of the scope of judicial review in such matters and to what extent it could consider and evaluate submissions with respect to equivalency of degrees and qualifications.

As noted by this Court in Asheesh Singh, Courts must desist from embarking upon an exercise of evaluating the equivalence of degrees and qualifications. That is a function which must necessarily be left to experts in the field. The Court in proceeding to do so would not only be transgressing the inherent limitations on the power of judicial review but also venturing into a field where it may be viewed as lacking the requisite expertise required to deal with such questions. Courts, by virtue of the well-recognized limitations on the power of judicial review, would be wary and hesitant in proceeding to determine equivalence of courses based upon its own assessment of the content or curriculum of two different courses or to enter a judicial declaration resting upon its own evaluation of an asserted comparability or similarity in the knowledge that one may gain while pursuing two different courses of study. It is in view of the aforesaid that it has often been said that the issue of equivalence of qualifications and degrees must essentially and consequently be left for determination by academicians.

In the present case the respondents are not shown to have taken any decision holding a Graduate degree in English Language and Literature as being equivalent or equipping a holder of either of those qualifications with an identical knowledge set. The Master's degree in English Literature has also not been established as having been obtained in the "same line of progression". The Court even otherwise and upon applying the test of reasonable prudence fails to discern any manifest or patent fallacy if it be asserted, as it has by the State, that the study of English Language and Literature is the pursuit of two separate or distinct subjects so as to hold in favour of the petitioner even in the absence of a definitive decision taken by the respondents in that respect.

The Court also fails to find any justification to interfere with the selection process bearing in mind firstly the nature of reliefs that are claimed and secondly since the petitioners failed to initiate any proceedings requiring a decision to be taken by the respondents on the question of eligibility prior to commencement of the recruitment process. In any case, the petitioners did not rest their candidature on any preexisting executive decision holding a Bachelors degree in English Language to be equivalent to that of English Literature. The asserted eligibility of the petitioners in light of they having pursued a course of English Literature at the Master's level stands settled in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench in Deepak Singh as well as of this Court in Asheesh Singh. The reasons assigned in those decisions conclusively answer the submissions advanced on this issue against the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.

Order Date:- 7.1.2021

Arun K. Singh

(Yashwant Varma, J.)