ANAND YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 12-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
ANAND YADAV & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020)
OCTOBER 12, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Advertisement issued by
respondent no.2-Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection
Commission inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors
in various subjects, including Education – Candidature of appellant
no.2 having M.Ed. Degree was rejected on the ground that he did
not fulfill the minimum criteria set out by UGC – Subsequent
advertisement issued for the same post did not specify either M.A.
(Education) or M.Ed. but specified inter alia a post-graduation with
requisite marks in relevant subject as eligibility – Issue arose if an
M.Ed. Degree is equivalent to M.A. (Education) and even if it is
could M.Ed. be said to be a post-graduation in the relevant subject
– Expert panel constituted by respondent no.2 inter alia opined that
for the post of Assistant Professor, degree of M.Ed. as well as M.A.
(Education) should be accepted – Accordingly, corrigendum was
issued by respondent no.2 for the posts in question – Challenged
by respondent no.3, an applicant under both the advertisements –
Division Bench quashed the said corrigendum inter alia holding that
M.Ed. qualified person could not be appointed to the post of
Assistant Professor (Education) – Respondent no.2 decided to
change the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant
Professor(Education) treating candidates with M.A. (Education) as
eligible for the said post – Candidates with M.Ed. Degree aggrieved
– Interim order passed provisionally permitting said candidates to
participate in selection process – Held: Respondent no.2-employer
accepted recommendation of the expert committee – UGC has also
taken a stand that insofar as the two degrees are concerned, both
are post graduate degrees – Equivalence authority, NCTE has also
opined on the basis of an expert committee, that the two can be
treated as equivalent for the post of Assistant Professor in Education
– Thus, it is neither for respondent no.3 nor for this Court to sit as
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 925
925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
a court of appeal over the decision of the experts – Impugned
judgment set aside, challenge to the corrigendum dtd. 11.7.16
repelled.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 This Court, at the inception, expresses its
reservation about the manner in which the writ petition was filed
and a decision was taken in the impugned order of the High Court
without even calling upon the relevant authorities, i.e., the UGC
and the NCTE to put forth their stand. The first authority is
undisputedly the one to determine and specify the nomenclature
of degrees, while the second is the authority of teacher education.
A decision based in the absence of concerned authorities is likely
to and has caused confusion. Affected candidates, or at least some
of them in a representative capacity, were bound to be heard and
no decision could have been taken behind the back of these
candidates. It is only before this Court that the complete contours
of the controversy have emerged and the stand of all the relevant
parties have been sought to be examined. [Paras 26-28]
[946-D-G]
1.2 The stand put forth by the UGC/respondent No. 4 is
unequivocal in its terms that M.Ed. degree is indeed a master’s
degree in Education in terms of the notification issued by it under
the UGC Act in terms of Section 22. In that sense, the matter is
put to rest in terms of recognition of M.Ed. as a post-graduate
degree by the competent authority. The question of equivalence,
as submitted by respondent No.4/UGC was to be left to the
NCTE. It is in view thereof that NCTE was added as a party
(respondent No. 5) and has, once again, put forth its position
quite unequivocally. The NCTE has drawn a distinction between
the two degrees to the extent that while M.A. (Education) is a
degree in the discipline of Education, the M.Ed. degree is a
practitioner’s degree. Reference has also been made to a
Committee constituted in pursuance of the impugned judgment,
which is an expert committee. In view of the recognition of the
M.Ed. programme of one-year duration, in order to acquire an
M.Ed. degree, one has to spend two years after the first degree
because for an M.Ed. degree, a B.Ed. degree is mandatory. It is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
in these circumstances a conclusion was reached that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.