2026:JHHC:4795 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2078 of 2022 ----- Dumar Chand Mahto, S/o Dular Chand Mahto, R/o village Barkisidhawara, P.O & P.S. -Chatro Chatti, District Bokaro ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S-Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, having its office at P.O., P.S. & District- Bokaro. 4. The District Education Officer, Bokaro, having its office at P.O., P.S. & District- Bokaro 5. National Council for Teachers Education through its Member Secretary, having office at G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka, P.O & P.S.- Dwarka, Near Metro Station, New Delhi, Dist- New Delhi …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate For the State : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV For the Resp-NCTE : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Advocate …...... 16/ 17.02.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure-8) as contained in memo no 266 issued under the signature of respondent no.4 (District Education Officer) whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been relieved from his services on the ground that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification ie B.Ed degree as per the service rules. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2026:JHHC:4795 2 iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the salary of the petitioner with suitable interest, who was working on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), subject- Economics, posted at Upgraded High School, Nawadih, Bokaro w.e.f January, 2020 till 11.2.2022. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of TGT (Trained Graduate Teacher) in Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission’s vide advertisement No. 21/2016 and was appointed as a TGT (Economics) on 06.07.2019 and joined the Upgraded High School, Gunjadih on 12.07.2019. The petitioner’s salary was stopped from January 2020. On 10.08.2021, he received a show-cause notice questioning his B.Ed (Special Education) degree, claiming that it did not meet the eligibility criteria for appointment. The petitioner replied, clarifying that his degree is recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), and is equivalent to a general B.Ed. After that the petitioner was relieved from service on 12.02.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite submitting the reply to the show cause, the petitioner was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing. The office order dated 12.02.2022 by District Education Officer directing that the petitioner to be relieved from his services was communicated to him on 15.02.2022. He further submits that the District Education Officer was not the competent authority to issue the relieving order, and the termination was made without following due procedure or departmental rules. He also submits that the action of the respondents in not paying his salary for more than two years, and then terminating him is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that he was never given a proper hearing and his defense was not considered. 2026:JHHC:4795 3 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that petitioner has a B.Ed. (Special Education) degree, whereas Advertisement required a regular B.Ed. degree recognized by NCTE. As per clarifications issued by NCTE and the Director, Secondary Education, B.Ed. (Special Education) is not equivalent to a general B.Ed. for teaching Classes IX to XII in mainstream schools. He further submits that the petitioner failed to produce any document proving equivalence of his qualification thus his services were terminated vide Memo No. 266 dated 12.02.2022. He also submits that petitioner’s salary was stopped due to lack of requisite qualification and the action was taken after following due procedure. 5. After hearing the parties and perusal of the records, I find that no material has been placed on record by the petitioner to establish that B.Ed. (Special Education) has been declared equivalent to a regular B.Ed. degree for the purpose of appointment as TGT in mainstream secondary schools. Eligibility conditions prescribed in an advertisement are mandatory in nature. Prescribing eligibility criteria is within the domain of the employer. The court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot expand the ambit of prescribed qualification nor can decide the equivalence of prescribed qualification. Once it was found that the petitioner lacked the essential qualification, the respondents were justified in relieving him from service. In absence of valid qualification, the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement or consequential monetary benefits. Be it noted that in this case the requirement is of regular B.Ed degree not a B.Ed (Special Education). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Unnikrishnan v. Union of India reported in (2023) 18 SCC 546 in paragraph 14 has held as under- 2026:JHHC:4795 4 14. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 353] , it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. (emphasis supplied) Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. 6. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find that it is settled law that the terms and conditions of an advertisement forms the basis of selection and appointment. The eligibility criteria prescribed are mandatory and binding both on the candidates as well as on the recruiting authority. Admittedly, degree of B.Ed and that of B.Ed (Special Education) is not equivalent. The employer did not insisted for B.Ed (Special Education) rather their requirement was B.Ed. Thus, no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order which is under challenge. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th February, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 27/02/ /2026 AFR