Exemption From Minimum Qualification For Promotion Arbitrary, Violates UGC Norms & Awards “Premium" To Illegality: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the striking down of a recruitment rule that exempted certain in-service candidates from possessing minimum educational qualifications for promotion, holding that such relaxation was arbitrary, violative of UGC norms, and amounted to granting a “premium to illegality.” Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Union of India and the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, the Court affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had invalidated Note-3 of the Recruitment Rules dated October 4, 2022 and directed consequential action.The dispute arose from a provision in the Recruitment Rules governing promotion to the posts of Headmaster (Secondary School) and Vice Principal (Senior Secondary School), which exempted existing incumbents from the requirement of possessing a Master's Degree and a Bachelor's Degree in Education. The Tribunal had set aside this exemption and directed withdrawal of promotions granted on its basis, prompting the authorities to approach the High Court.A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De examined the scheme of the Recruitment Rules in light of the UGC Regulations, 1985, which mandate that a valid Master's Degree can only be pursued after completion of a three-year undergraduate degree or a two-year degree supplemented by a one-year bridge course. Rejecting the administration's reliance on a 2015 UGC communication, the Court held that the same was merely clarificatory in nature and did not dilute or supersede the binding Regulations. It observed that the communication only protected students who had enrolled or completed their degrees prior to the coming into force of the 1985 Regulations and could not be used to validate otherwise invalid degrees.The Court found that Note-3 effectively nullified the essential eligibility criteria prescribed in the Recruitment Rules themselves. “In the garb of providing exemption, the minimum educational qualification… are done away with altogether for existing incumbents,” the Bench observed, holding that such a provision was inherently contradictory and legally untenable. It further held that the exemption created an unlawful classification between existing and future candidates, lacking any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.Emphasizing the broader implications, the Court warned that such relaxation would have a cascading effect on the quality of education, noting that the University Grants Commission, being the statutory authority, is the ultimate arbiter of the validity of academic qualifications. It held that the exemption primarily benefited candidates who did not possess valid degrees in terms of UGC norms and that allowing such candidates to be promoted would unfairly prejudice those who had complied with the prescribed educational standards. The Court observed that such candidates would gain an undue advantage in seniority, effectively “giving a premium to unlawful Master's Degree holders” over those with valid qualifications.The Bench also rejected reliance on an earlier decision in Shri Anil Xalxo, clarifying that while the Court in that case had protected existing employees from losing their livelihood, it had not validated their degrees. “An illegal act cannot be made legalized due to passage of time,” the Court reiterated, holding that such protection could not be extended to grant further benefits like promotion on the basis of invalid qualifications. Similarly, reliance on Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University was held to be misplaced, as the absence of fraud on the part of students does not cure the inherent invalidity of their degrees.Concluding that the impugned provision was contrary to statutory regulations and constitutional principles, the Court held that the Tribunal was “perfectly justified” in setting aside Note-3 and directing the authorities to amend the Recruitment Rules and withdraw promotions granted to ineligible candidates. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Yohannan Sajeevan & Ors.Case No.: WP.CT/58/2025Click here to read order

Exemption From Minimum Qualification For Promotion Arbitrary, Violates UGC Norms & Awards “Premium" To Illegality: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Exemption From Minimum Qualification For Promotion Arbitrary, Violates UGC Norms & Awards “Premium" To Illegality: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers