INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 13-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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

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