Writ Court Can't Sit As Academic Expert To Decide Equivalence Of Degrees Where Rules Prescribe None: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the service rules prescribing the qualification for a post make no provision for consideration of equivalent degrees, the writ court cannot decide whether a degree not named in the rules is equivalent to the one prescribed.

It held that in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot sit as an academic expert to determine such equivalence.

Justice Siddharth Nandan held,

“This Court is constrained to hold that the law governing the area i.e. Rules, 2024, after having prescribed the qualifications and there being no stipulation for consideration of any equivalent subject, as desired by the petitioners in the present writ petition, now in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an Academic Expert for determining the equivalence of the educational qualification.”

Petitioners had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Male/Female) (Computer) pursuant to Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2025 and their candidature was rejected for want of the prescribed qualification. The advertisement required B.Tech/B.E. (Computer Science), or graduation in Computer Science or in Computer Application, or a graduation degree with an 'A' Level course from NIELIT, or B.Tech. in Computer Science with MCA.

It was argued for the petitioners that B.Tech. (I.T.) ought to be treated as equivalent to B.Tech. (Computer Science), since the I.T. curriculum involves substantial and direct study of computer applications, programming, database systems, software engineering, operating systems, networking and algorithms. Reliance was placed on a notification dated 06.10.2021, said to address the difficulties faced by job-seekers and government organisations in recruiting to posts where the prescribed qualifications lie in engineering and technology.

Counsel for the Commission submitted that it was bound by the qualifications prescribed and could not deviate from them, as any deviation would affect transparency and would place candidates who had chosen not to apply on a reading of the advertisement in an inequitable position. Equivalence, it was submitted, was not for the Commission to decide but for the State Government, which ought to come out with its stand after convening a committee of experts to assess suitability on the merits of each case.

The Court had called for an affidavit from the Additional Chief Secretary (Secondary Education) on the State's policy on treating degrees as equivalent to the prescribed qualification, and had permitted the petitioners to provisionally appear in the main examination.

The affidavit disclosed that pursuant to an order dated 17.09.2021 in Sri Vikas and 80 others Vs. State of U.P. and others, an Inter-Departmental Committee had been constituted by Government Order dated 26.04.2023 to clarify equivalence in educational qualifications. On its recommendation, the Sixth Amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983 was notified on 30.01.2025 under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, by which, as the affidavit put it, equivalence in all subjects stood abolished. The qualification prescribed under the amended Rules is the same as that in the advertisement, and the Commission had not stipulated consideration of any equivalent course.

Holding that no relief could be granted, the Court observed,

“this Court does not find any further requirement to indulge in the matter, since the Rules, 2024, do not stipulate consideration of any equivalent subject, as desired by the petitioners in the present writ petition; and as such the petitioners do not have the eligibility prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher, Trained Graduate Grade (Computer), pursuant to Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2025, and accordingly, no relief can be granted.”

The writ petition was accordingly consigned to record.