UGC Can't Restrict State From Prescribing Essential Educational Qualifications For Public Services: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the University Grants Commission and its Regulations cannot restrict the State Government from prescribing essential educational qualifications for public services. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 256]In doing so the court refused to interfere with the rejection of a candidate for not possessing a post graduate degree in Zoology as he was seeking appointment as Assistant Professor (Zoology), despite having M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Entomology which he claimed was an allied subject recognized by University Grants Commission Regulations 2018.The court was considering a batch of petitions seeking appointment to teaching positions, wherein one of them sought a direction to the Sate to treat the candidate as The eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) under the OBC category and to permit his participation in the ensuing interview and final selection process.The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed:"This Court finds immense substance in the arguments advanced by the answering respondents that the prescription of qualifications for a post is strictly a matter of recruitment policy. The State, acting as the employer, is fully entitled to prescribe specific conditions of eligibility. The employer must bear in mind several features, including the nature of the job, the aptitude required, and the functionality of the qualification to ensure the candidate can perfectly teach core Zoology to students.The petitioner's reliance upon the UGC Regulations and their qualification in the SET-2024 examination is entirely misplaced. As rightly contended in the respondents' reply, the NET/SET is merely a qualifying examination and cannot operate as substantive eligibility for the specific post in question. Furthermore, the UGC does not possess the jurisdiction to restrict the State from prescribing its own essential educational qualifications tailored to assist the needs of its public services". Per the facts, the Higher Education Department (respondent no 1) had issued a requisition for recruitment of an Assistant Professor. The MP Public Service Commission (MPPSC) published an advertisement on December 30, 2022. The petitioner had applied for the post under the OBC Category. The petitioner was provisionally selected and included in the 13% provisional list. He was required to submit documents by December 11, 2024, which were submitted by the petitioner. However, his candidature was rejected on the grounds of lacking the prescribed educational qualification. However, the notification also invited objections and representations from aggrieved candidates within a week. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation, but his candidature was rejected by MPPSC on the grounds that he possessed Post Graduate and PhD degrees in Agriculture, and his NET qualification was also in the discipline of Agriculture, thereby rendering him ineligible for the Zoology post.The court, referring to the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, reiterated that it cannot act as an appellate academic body and does not require expertise to assess the equivalence of degrees. The bench, after examination of the advertisement, noted that it explicitly required a Master's degree in Zoology or its specified allied subjects along with NET qualification in Life Sciences. Thus, in view of the specific directions and rules, the court noted that the primary issue was "whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed Post Graduate Degree in the main or allied subjects, and the NET certificate in the requisite subject". The court noted that the petitioner clearly did not have the required postgraduate degree in the main subject or allied subjects. The court, from the reply of the respondents, noted that the petitioner's candidature was made strictly following the rules and that an independent expert committee of HED. The court further noted that the petitioner's reliance on UCG Regulations and qualification in the SET 2024 examination is "misplaced" as the SET is merely a qualifying examination and cannot operate as substantive eligibility for a specific post in question. Accepting the State's submission regarding the sanctity of the advertisement, the court held, "Permitting such flexible interpretations mid-process would amount to a fraud on the public and fundamentally violate the equality mandate enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India".Accordingly, the court held that the impugned actions of the respondents do not suffer from infirmity and dismissed the petitions. Case Title: Dr Rahul Patidar v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 42965/2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 256Click here to read/download the Order

UGC Can't Restrict State From Prescribing Essential Educational Qualifications For Public Services: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

UGC Can't Restrict State From Prescribing Essential Educational Qualifications For Public Services: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers