INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 323, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 323
323
INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2217-2218 of 2022)
APRIL 13, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service law: Appointment to the Post of Postgraduate trained
Teachers – Eligibility Criteria – Jharkhand Selection Service
Selection issued an advertisement by which application were invited
from the eligible candidate for the appointment to the Post of
Postgraduate trained Teachers – Eligibility Criteria for the
appointment in History was Postgraduate degree in History with
50% marks – At the time of verification of testimonials of the selected
candidates, it was found that they had a Postgraduate degree in
one of the branches of History in place of History as a whole –
Their candidatures were cancelled – High Court dismissed their
writ petition – On appeal, held: Obtaining degree in one of the
branches of History cannot be said to be having a degree in History
as a whole – History teacher has to teach in all branches of History,
namely, Ancient History, Medieval/Modern History, etc – Expert
Committee 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 – 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 – Candidature of appellants rightly
cancelled on the ground that they did not have the requisite
qualification for the post – Education/Educational Institutions.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The respective writ petitioners have obtained
the Postgraduate degrees/ Bachelor degrees, as the case may
be, in one of the branches of History, namely, Indian Ancient
History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology.
Obtaining the degree in one of the branches of History cannot be
said to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole. As a History
teacher, he/she has to teach in all the subjects of History, namely,
Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval /
Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology
etc. Therefore, having studied and obtaining the degree in only
one branch of History cannot be said to be having a degree in
History subject as a whole, which was the requirement. All the
relevant aspects have been considered and gone into in detail by
the Single Judge meticulously. [Paras 6, 6.1][333-D-G]
2. 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. 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. [Paras 6.4, 6.5][334-B-D]
3. In the present case, 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). There cannot be any
deviation from the educational qualifications mentioned in the
advertisement. Once having found that the respective writ
petitioners-appellants were not having the requisite qualification
as per the advertisement, namely, the Postgraduate/Bachelor
degree in History, which was the requirement as per the
advertisement and thereafter their candidature was canceled, both
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court
have rightly refused to interfere with the same. [Para 6.6]
[334-E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2217-
2218 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.06.2020 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No.796 of 2019 and Order dated
15.06.2020 in L.P.A. No.826 of 2019.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2220, 2219 And 2221 of 2022
Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Kaushik, Chetan Joshi, Ms.
Swati P. Roy, Raja Rajeshwaran S., M. Yogesh Kanna, Narender Kumar
Verma, Vikas Tripathi, Ms. Mandavi Pandey, Pulkit Srivastava, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Sunil Kumar, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., Vishnu Sharma,
Abhishek, Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Ms. Shreya Singh, Kabir Dixit, Ms.
Rohini Prasad, Prashant Bhushan, Anilendra Pandey, Ms. Alice Raj,
Brajesh Pandey, Mukesh Tiwari, Shilender Chaudhry, Hitesh Kumar
Sharma, S. K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, E. Vinay Kumar, Naresh Kumar,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments
and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal Nos. 796 of 2019 and 826 of 2019 by which the Division
Bench of the High Court has confirmed the respective judgments and
orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing
the writ petitions, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present
appeals.
1.1 The
present appeals are of two categories. Civil Appeal Nos.
2217-2218 of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 2219 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No.
2221 of 2022 are with respect to the writ petitioners, who applied for the
post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in the subject History and Civil
Appeal No. 2220 of 2022 is with respect to the original writ petitioners,
who applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject of
History/Civics.
INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
under:-
Facts in respect of Postgraduate Trained Teachers
2.1 That the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 24.07.2017
forwarded requisition of the Department of School Education and Literacy
(Secondary Education Directorate) Government of Jharkhand to the
Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as
“J.S.S.C.”) in terms of the Appointment Rules, 2012 for starting the
selection process for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained
Teachers in the High School of the State of Jharkhand for different
subjects under different categories.
2.2 That 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 No.10/2017
was issued by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates
for considering their candidature for appointment to the post of
Postgraduate Trained Teachers. It was a combined advertisement for
the post of Postgraduate Trained Teachers for different subjects under
different categories. The advertisement provided the pay-scale and
minimum educational qualification for the posts. That 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).
2.3 Pursuant to the advertisement, the respective original writ
petitioners applied for the said posts and participated in the selection
process. All of them submitted their application forms online andin
theirforms, they also mentioned their respective educational qualifications
as Post graduates in Hindi. They were allowed to appear in the
examination, who were also declared successful on the basis of their
performance in the examination. After publication of the result, successful
candidates were required to get verification of their testimonials. 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 were having a Postgraduate
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
327
degree in Medieval History; Ancient History; Ancient History and Culture;
Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. respectively from different
universities and as such they failed to submit the Postgraduate degree in
History in terms of the advertisement. It was found that the respective
petitioners had Postgraduate degrees in one of branches of History in
place of History as a whole and, therefore, show-cause 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”.
2.4 At that stage, some of the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions
before the High Court and some filed writ petitions after their candidatures
were cancelled.The learned Single Judge dismissed their respective writ
petitions holding that the original writ petitioners were ineligible for the
selection and appointment as Postgraduate Teacher in History subject.
The learned Single Judge held that only those candidates, who have
obtained degree exclusively in the subject “History” as per the
advertisement are entitled for consideration for appointment to the said
post.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and orders
passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions, the
original writ petitioners preferred letters patent appeals before the Division
Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgments and
orders, the
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Letters Patent
Appeals and has confirmed the judgments and orders passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, which has given rise
to the present Civil Appeal Nos. 2217-2218 of 2022, Civil Appeal No.
2219 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 2221 of 2022.
Facts in respect of Graduate Trained Teachers
2.1.1 That the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand by letters dated 23.09.2016,
04.11.2016 and 02.02.2017 sent the requisition to the J.S.S.C. for starting
the selection process for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained
Teachers in different subjects in different Districts of the State. That the
J.S.S.C. after receiving the requisition, started selection process for
appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teachers and accordingly
invited online applications for the Common Graduate Trained Teacher
Competition Examination, 2016. The advertisement No.21/2016 was
INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
published by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates
for considering their candidatures for appointment against the advertised
posts. As per the advertisement, for the post of History/Civics, the
eligibility criteria was “Graduate with History and Political Science but
out of two subjects, one subject must have 45 per cent marks and B.Ed.
from institute recognized or B.Ed. from National Teachers Education
Council and for SC/ST minimum 40 per cent”.
2.1.2 The respective writ petitioners submitted their application
forms online for considering their candidatures for appointment to the
post of Graduate Trained Teacher (G.T.T.) for subject ‘History and
Civics’. They mentioned their educational qualification as Graduate in
History and Political Science in their online application forms.
2.1.3 On the basis of the declaration made by them in the online
application form, they were allowed to appear in the examination and
they were also declared successful on the basis of their performance in
the examination. After publication of the result, the successful candidates
were called for verification of their testimonials.
On the date of the verification of the testimonials, the original writ
petitioners submitted their certificates of Graduation degree. It was found
that they were having the Graduate Degree in Ancient History; Ancient
History, Culture and Archaeology and Medieval History etc. respectively
from
different universities and they failed to submit their Graduation
degree in ‘History’ in terms of the advertisement. Therefore, it was
found that as the petitioners had Graduation degree in one of the branches
of the subject History in place of ‘History’ as a whole and therefore,
they were not eligible for the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in the
subjects of History and Civics as they cannot be said to be having the
requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement.
2.1.4 The show cause notices were issued to them to show cause
why their candidatures may not be cancelled on the ground that they are
not having the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement and
therefore ineligible for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject
of History and Civics.
2.1.5 At that stage and after their candidatures were cancelled,
the respective petitioners filed the writ petitions before the High Court.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions
by observing and holding that obtaining the Bachelor degree in one of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
the branches of the subject, namely, History cannot be said to be obtaining
the Graduation degree in the subject of ‘History’ as a whole and therefore,
they are not eligible as they cannot be said to be having the requisite
qualification in terms of the advertisement.
2.1.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and
orders passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions,
the original writ petitioners preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the
High Court. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court has
dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeals. Hence the original writ
petitioners have preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 2220 of 2022.
3. Mrs. V. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate and Ms. Mandavi
Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants
have vehemently submitted that the advertisements itself were confusing.
It is submitted that in the advertisements, the word “History/Civics” has
been mentioned, so far as Graduate Trained Teacher is concerned.
3.1 It is further submitted that as such the original writ petitioners
are having the prescribed requisite minimum educational qualifications
as a Graduate in the related subject (the requisite qualification in History
and Political Science). It is 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. That all the petitioners
have obtained the Graduation/Postgraduation degree in Indian Ancient
History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History,
Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology indicating specialization
in the History subject. It is submitted that the papers pursued by the
petitioners are in “History”. It is submitted that admittedly, 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.
3.2 It is 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. It is submitted that as such the Expert
Committee considered the Postgraduate degrees obtained by the
respective candidates, who applied for the post of P.G.T.T. (History).
INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
3.3 It is further submitted that even the so-called Committee
comprised only of the local Institutions and persons from the State of
Jharkhand alone. That the so-called Expert Committee was never
constituted in the case of G.T.T. candidates and it was restricted to
considering the cases of P.G.T.T. candidates.
3.4 Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioners - G.T.T. candidates has further submitted that even the
case of G.T.T. cannot be compared with that of P.G.T.T. candidates. It is
submitted that the minimum eligibility requirement in both were completely
different. Applications for P.G.T.T. candidates were invited only to teach
“History” and the requirement was degree in the related subject. On the
other hand, G.T.T. candidates were required for teaching “History/Civics”
and the minimum eligibility is also different.
3.5 It is further submitted that in the present case, the principle of
legitimate expectation ought to be invoked in view of the fact that in the
identically worded previous advertisements, the candidates having similar
/ identical qualifications as that of the petitioners were selected and are
working.
3.6 It is further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court ought to
have appreciated that the other States and the instrumentalities of those
States recognize the degreeswhich the petitioners are having, for the
concerned post/subject. It is submitted that even Kendriya
Vidyalaya,
which is controlled by the Central Government appoints candidates
possessing Graduation degree in Ancient Indian History / Ancient Indian
History and Archaeology / Medieval and Modern History for the post of
G.T.T. (History) and does not make an objection upon such degrees of
those candidates. It is submitted that as such at the Secondary level,
there is no composite subject like Social Studies. It is submitted that
Secondary level is upto Class X only which has subject Social Studies.
3.7 It is further submitted that as such it is clarified in the respective
certificates issued by the respective universities that the Ancient Indian
History / Ancient Indian History and Archaeology / Medieval and Modern
History is an integral part of the History and is equivalent to History as
a subject. It is submitted that the said subjects come under the subject
“History”. It is urged that therefore the respective candidates are eligible
for teaching the History/Civics.
3.8 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly
appreciated the fact that in the various Universities there is heterogeneity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
at the Graduation level while conferring degrees in various subjects.
Some Universities confer Bachelor of Arts in the subject itself like B.A.
in History and some Universities confer B.A. in related branch of History
indicating specialization like B.A. in Medieval History and B.A. in Ancient
History etc. It is submitted that all these degrees indicating various
specializations in various related branches of History cannot be construed
as divorced from subject “History”.
3.9 Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate has heavily relied upon
the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in
Writ Petition No.1130 of 2017 – Hari Sharma and Ors. Vs. State
of Jharkhand by which with respect to the very advertisement and
very post in the subject,”History/Civics”, it is observed and held that the
qualification for appointment on the post of G.T.T. for “History/Civics”
in Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal
and it is contrary to Jharkhand Appointment Rules. It is submitted that in
the aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge also quashed the entire
advertisement No.21 of 2016, more particularly, the posts in the subject
of “History/Civics” on account of serious inconsistencies, mistakes and
drafting errors. However, Mrs. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate has
fairly conceded that against the decision of the learned Single Judge, an
appeal is preferred and pending and the judgment and order passed by
the learned
Single Judge has been stayed.
3.10 In addition to what has been submitted by Mrs. Mohana,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the G.T.T., Ms. Mandavi
Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the P.G.T.T. has
vehemently submitted that the Universities from where they have studied
and obtained the Postgraduation degrees in History/Postgraduate degree
certificates in History are not given and the degree certificates are given
only in the particular specialized branch of History. It is submitted that
therefore the Postgraduation degree in History and Bachelor of Arts
degree in History, both are different and cannot be equated and/or
compared.
4. All these appeals are opposed by Shri Sunil Kumar, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the J.S.S.C. and Shri Vishnu
Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.
The present appeals are also opposed by Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the impleaders, who are already
appointed and posted.
INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respective
respondents that the applications were invited by giving advertisements
as per Rule 50 of the Rules and especially considering Rule 9.
That as per the advertisement, the requirement was specific, namely
combination of “History/Civics” (post of G.T.T.).
4.2 That according to the State, for History and Civics, only one
teacher is required. Therefore, the requirement was specific – “History/
Civics”. That in 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. It is submitted that therefore obtaining
the Postgraduate degree/Bachelor degree in History as a whole is a
must. That the candidates should have a degree in Political Science also
so far as post of G.T.T. In the present case, admittedly, none of the
candidates/writ petitioners are having Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in
History as a whole. It is contended that they have studied and obtained
the Postgraduate/Bachelor degrees in only one of the branches of History
namely Indian Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture,
Medieval / Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and
Archaeology, which cannot be said to be obtaining the Postgraduate/
Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement. It is 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 is submitted that the
same view is applicable with respect to the Bachelor degree in History.
Therefore,the same analogy is applicable to both – Postgraduate degree
in History and Bachelor degree in History.
4.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respective
respondents including those, who have already been appointed that only
those candidates, who were having the degrees in History have been
selected and appointed. Shri Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the impleaders submitted that the already appointed
candidates are only those, who were having the Bachelor / Postgraduate
degree in History and not in a particular branch of History.
4.4 Making the above submissions, it is 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
333
cannot be said to be having the requisite qualifications as per the
advertisement.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present appeals,
the dispute is with respect to the posts namely, Postgraduate Trained
Teacher in History and Graduate Trained Teachers in History/Civics.
As per the State, so far as the G.T.T.is concerned, the requirement was
a combination of History/Civics. 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.
6.1 We have gone through the degrees/ certificates in the case of
the respective writ petitioners. It appears that the respective writ
petitioners have obtained the Postgraduate degrees/ Bachelor degrees,as
the case may be, in one of the branches of History, namely, Indian Ancient
History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History,
Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. In our view,obtaining
the degree in one of the branches of History cannot be said to be
obtaining
the degree in History as a whole. As a History teacher, he/she has to
teach in all the subjects of History, namely, Ancient  History, Indian
Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History, Indian Ancient
History, Culture and Archaeology etc.Therefore, having studied and
obtaining the degree in only one branch of History cannot be said to be
having a degree in History subject as a whole, which was the requirement.
All the relevant aspects have been considered and gone into in detail by
the learned Single Judge meticulously.
6.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the
learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in Writ Petition No.1130
of 2017 – Hari Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand is concerned, it
is to be noted that the said decision of the learned Single Judge has been
stayed by the Division Bench in appeal and the decision is pending.
Even the controversy in the said writ petition before the learned Single
INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Judge was with respect to combination post namely, “History/Civics”
and there was no specific controversy like in the present case.
6.3 It is also required to be noted that all the posts advertised have
been filled in and the respective teachers are working.
6.4 At this stage, it is required to be 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.
6.5 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.
6.6 In the present case, 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). There cannot be any deviation from the educational qualifications
mentioned in the advertisement. Once having found that the respective
writ petitioners – appellants herein were not having the requisite
qualification as per the advertisement, namely, the Postgraduate/Bachelor
degree in History, which was the requirement as per the advertisement
and thereafter their candidature was canceled, both the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have rightly
refused to interfere with the same. We are in complete agreement with
the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of
the High Court.
6.7 As observed hereinabove in the online applications, it was
stated by the respective petitioners that they are having the Postgraduate/
Bachelor degree in History and only at the time of verification of the
documents, when the respective certificates were produced, at that time
only, the authorities came to know that the respective writ petitioners
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
335
have the degrees in one branch of History and not in History as a whole
and therefore the show-cause notices were issued so that the respective
petitioners can clarify and satisfy that they are having the requisite
qualification of Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and after giving
them the opportunity, the decision has been taken and that too after
obtaining the Expert Committee’s opinion.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, 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 No.21 of 2016 and 10 of 2017.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the
appeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly
dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeals dismissed.
INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]