Mr. T.D. Yadav, Advocate v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ORS

Judgment

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, with regard to their candidature for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher [“TGT”] (Music), pursuant to an advertisement issued by National Education Society for Tribal Students [“NESTS”] in the year

2023. 2. By the said notification, NESTS sought to recruit teaching and non-teaching employees for several posts in the Eklavya Model Residential Schools, including 320 posts of TGT (Music). The dispute concerns the essential educational qualification for the said post, which was prescribed as follows: “Essential Qualification: A Bachelors Degree with Music from a recognised University/ Institution.” Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:26.05.2025 10:43:59 W.P.(C) 12035/2024

3. The petitioners participated in the written examination and were issued provisional letters of appointment, subject to document verification. After document verification, however, their candidatures were rejected by separate communications dated 24.06.2024, which stated that they did not possess the required educational qualification and were, therefore, ineligible for the said post. 4.

I have heard Mr. T.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Amartya A. Sharan, learned counsel for NESTS. 5. The petitioners admittedly do not hold qualifications which are termed as Bachelor’s degrees with Music. Their claims that they fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions, instead originate from certificates recognising them as Sangeet Visharad or Sangeet Prabhakar, issued by institutions of good standing and repute. The certificates have been placed on record and in the case of each of the petitioners, are as follows: PETITIONER NO. 1.

6. PARTICULAR OF DEGREE Visharad – Sangeet Examination Recognised Bachelors in Music Sangeet Prabhakar & Sangeet Visharad Sangeet Examination Senior Diploma Examination/ Sangeet Prabhakar Sangeet Visharad Prabhakar Diploma Senior Examination/ Sangeet Prabhakar Bhartiya INSTITUTION DETAILS Akhil Gandharva Mahavidyalaya Mandal, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahbad, UP Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahbad, UP Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahbad, UP Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:26.05.2025 10:43:59 W.P.(C) 12035/2024

6. In support of the contention that these certificates are equivalent to Bachelor’s degrees, the petitioners have placed on record certificates issued by the institutions themselves, stating that their courses are widely recognised and have been granted equivalence by several State Governments and Universities. The Sangeet Visharad qualification, according to the petitioners and the concerned institutions, has been recognised as a Bachelor’s degree in Music. 7. There are two aspects to the qualification mentioned in the advertisement as far as this post is concerned, one is that the candidate must hold a “Bachelor degree with Music”, and second is that the qualification must be “from a recognised university/institution”. It is difficult to accept the petitioners’ case on both these grounds. 8. The petitioners admittedly do not hold the Bachelor’s “degree”, as properly understood. The word “degree” is defined in Section 22(3) of the UGC Act, 1956 [“the Act”], as follows: “22(3) For the purposes of this section, “degree” means any such degree as may, with the previous approval Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by the notification in the official Gazette.” Bachelor’s degrees are included in the notifications issued by the Government under the said section, but the qualifications held by the petitioners are not. The requirement under the advertisement was of a “Bachelor’s degree”. Section 22(1) of the Act limits the right of conferring or grant of “degrees” only to “universities”, and Section 2(f) of the Act provides that universities must be recognised by the UGC. 9. It is not contended that any of the institutions are recognised as universities, or were entitled to confer “degrees”. The certificates issued Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:26.05.2025 10:43:59 W.P.(C) 12035/2024 by them, therefore, do not fall within the definition of a “Bachelor’s degree with Music”, as required. 10. The contention with regard to equivalence of the qualification to a Bachelor’s degree is also one that lies outside the remit of the writ court. The advertisement in the present case was limited to the requirement of a “Bachelor’s degree”, and did not expressly contemplate equivalent qualification. In any event, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P.1 and Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Imtiyaz Ahmed2, clearly hold that questions of equivalence are best left to employers to determine, with the interference of the writ court warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness. I do not, in the facts of this case, discern any such arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision of the respondents, so as to call for an interference of the writ court. 11. The second aspect, of recognition of the university or institution, also comes in the petitioners’ way. The institutions in question are, as noted above, not recognised universities, and there is also no support for the contentions that the institutions are otherwise recognised statutorily or by an official process. The certificates issued by the institutions themselves can, in my view, not be determinative. 12. Mr. Yadav relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh3, which has been followed by the Orissa High Court in Santanu Kumar Nayak and Anr. v.

I have heard Mr. T.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Amartya A. Sharan, learned counsel for NESTS. 5. The petitioners admittedly do not hold qualifications which are termed as Bachelor’s degrees with Music. Their claims that they fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions, instead originate from certificates recognising them as Sangeet Visharad or Sangeet Prabhakar, issued by institutions of good standing and repute. The certificates have been placed on record and in the case of each of the petitioners, are as follows: PETITIONER NO. 1.

6. PARTICULAR OF DEGREE Visharad – Sangeet Examination Recognised Bachelors in Music Sangeet Prabhakar & Sangeet Visharad Sangeet Examination Senior Diploma Examination/ Sangeet Prabhakar Sangeet Visharad Prabhakar Diploma Senior Examination/ Sangeet Prabhakar Bhartiya INSTITUTION DETAILS Akhil Gandharva Mahavidyalaya Mandal, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahbad, UP Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahbad, UP Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahbad, UP Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:26.05.2025 10:43:59 W.P.(C) 12035/2024

6. In support of the contention that these certificates are equivalent to Bachelor’s degrees, the petitioners have placed on record certificates issued by the institutions themselves, stating that their courses are widely recognised and have been granted equivalence by several State Governments and Universities. The Sangeet Visharad qualification, according to the petitioners and the concerned institutions, has been recognised as a Bachelor’s degree in Music. 7. There are two aspects to the qualification mentioned in the advertisement as far as this post is concerned, one is that the candidate must hold a “Bachelor degree with Music”, and second is that the qualification must be “from a recognised university/institution”. It is difficult to accept the petitioners’ case on both these grounds. 8. The petitioners admittedly do not hold the Bachelor’s “degree”, as properly understood. The word “degree” is defined in Section 22(3) of the UGC Act, 1956 [“the Act”], as follows: “22(3) For the purposes of this section, “degree” means any such degree as may, with the previous approval Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by the notification in the official Gazette.” Bachelor’s degrees are included in the notifications issued by the Government under the said section, but the qualifications held by the petitioners are not. The requirement under the advertisement was of a “Bachelor’s degree”. Section 22(1) of the Act limits the right of conferring or grant of “degrees” only to “universities”, and Section 2(f) of the Act provides that universities must be recognised by the UGC. 9. It is not contended that any of the institutions are recognised as universities, or were entitled to confer “degrees”. The certificates issued Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:26.05.2025 10:43:59 W.P.(C) 12035/2024 by them, therefore, do not fall within the definition of a “Bachelor’s degree with Music”, as required. 10. The contention with regard to equivalence of the qualification to a Bachelor’s degree is also one that lies outside the remit of the writ court. The advertisement in the present case was limited to the requirement of a “Bachelor’s degree”, and did not expressly contemplate equivalent qualification. In any event, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P.1 and Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Imtiyaz Ahmed2, clearly hold that questions of equivalence are best left to employers to determine, with the interference of the writ court warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness. I do not, in the facts of this case, discern any such arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision of the respondents, so as to call for an interference of the writ court. 11. The second aspect, of recognition of the university or institution, also comes in the petitioners’ way. The institutions in question are, as noted above, not recognised universities, and there is also no support for the contentions that the institutions are otherwise recognised statutorily or by an official process. The certificates issued by the institutions themselves can, in my view, not be determinative. 12. Mr. Yadav relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh3, which has been followed by the Orissa High Court in Santanu Kumar Nayak and Anr. v.