The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's candidature for a Teacher post due to having a B.Pharma degree instead of Graduation in Science. The court held that equivalence of qualifications is for the recruiting authority, not the judiciary, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 5
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 8086 of 2022
Gaurav Kiran, S/o Shri Daihar Lal, aged about 28 years, R/o Radha Vihar, Krishna Nagar, Hanuman Nagar, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
For Petitioner :Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For State :Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas ORDER ON BOARD
05.12.2022
Page 2 of 5
Medicinal Chemistry-I, Pharmacology-I, Medicinal Chemistry-II, Pharmacology-II, Pharmacognosy-II, Bio-Pharmaceutics, Medicinal Chemistry-III, Pharmacology-III, Pharmacology-III, Pharmacology-III, Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Medicinal Chemistry whereas the qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher (Science) is Graduation in Science. The respondents have called the petitioner for verification of the documents on 05.05.2022 and his candidature for appointment on the said post has been rejected vide Annexure P/1 for the reasons mentioned therein.
Page 3 of 5
authority to determine. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & others1 has held at paragraph 26 to 28 as under:-
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. 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 KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre- suppose 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 of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.
1 (2019) 2 SCC 404
Page 4 of 5
Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.
Page 5 of 5
cannot be said that whether B.Pharma is equivalent to Graduation in Science, can be ascertained by this Court as it is prerogative of the employer i.e. the respondents to examine whether the qualification is equivalence or not, as such, the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) does not suffer from any perversity or illegality which warrants any interference by this Court.
Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge
Arun .
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Bachelor of Pharmacy degree is equivalent to Graduation in Science for appointment as a Teacher under judicial review.
Whether equivalence of professional qualifications is a matter for the judicial court or the recruiting authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Zahoor Ahmad Rather & others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & othersRelied on¶24
Zahoor Ahmad Rather & others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & others
Gaurav Kiran
State of Chhattisgarh
Joint Director, Education-Division
Narendra Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
