1 CGHC010054972021 2026:CGHC:30369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1312 of 2021  Meeteshwari Shakar D/o Gunish Chandra Shakar Aged About 37 Years R/o 64/1121, Malshay Talab Road, Behind Danteswari Mandir, Gopiya Para, Purani Basti, Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Directorate Of Public Education Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan, Block 3, First Floor,new Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 17.7.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs :- I. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued appropriate writs/orders/directions and quash, set aside the impugned letter dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent authority. II. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions 2 by directing to respondents, to consider the case of the petitioner as qualified candidate for the post of Lecturer in the subject of Biology. III. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent's authority to issue the appointment, posting order in favour of the petitioner. IV. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner. 2) Facts of present case are that Directorate of Public Instructions, State of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 9.3.2019 for filling the vacant posts of Lecturer, Teacher and Assistant Teacher under E and T cadres across the entire state. Petitioner, who was a post graduate in Environmental Sciences and possessed CGTET and CTET qualifications applied for the post of Lecturer (Zoology). She participated in the recruitment process and initially she was selected but during the course of document verification, her candidature was rejected vide order dated 4.1.2021 on the ground she did possess post graduation in zoology. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner completed her post graduation (M.Sc.) in Environmental Science, which is an allied subject of zoology and botany. He has referred a circular issued by the Higher Education Department dated 13.2.2019 wherein environmental science subject has been treated as an allied subject of zoology. He further submits that when Higher Education Department has treated the environmental 3 science to be an allied subject of zoology, School Education Department should also apply the same analogy. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Inder Sain Versus State of Haryana and Others passed in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1716/2002 wherein post-graduate degree in environmental science was treated to be equivalent to post graduation in biology. He prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He submits that Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 [hereinafter to referred as ‘Recruitment Rules’] prescribes the qualifications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher, Teacher and Lecturer. He further submits that according to the Recruitment Rules, environmental science is not one of the allied subjects of zoology subject and thus, petitioner has rightly been declared disqualified for the post of Lecturer (Zoology) and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) Relevant portion of Recruitment Rules which prescribes the qualifications required for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Zoology) is reproduced herein-below :- 4 परिशिष्ट-एक ( न्यूनतम अर्हतयू) (एक) सर्हयूक शिक्षक *** *** *** (दो) शिक्षक *** *** *** (तन) व्याख्यूत किसी मान्यता प्राप्ता किश्वकिद्यालय / सीस्थान सी किताय श्रेणी मा किनम्नलिलखिता किषय मा सी किसी ए किषय मा स्नता त्तर / सीमाक्ष ए बी.एड स.क्र. (1) विषयू (2) विषयू समर्ह (3) 10. जी किज्ञान नस्पकिता शास्त्र/ प्राणी शास्त्र/लइफ सीइन्सी/जी-कि./अन0लिशा. (जीनटि2क्सी) / सी4क्ष्मा जी-कि. (माइ बीय ल6जी) / जी- प्रा द्या कि7. (बीय 2क्न6लजी) / आणीकि जी किज्ञान ( मालिल0 लर बीय ल6जी)/ पादपा र्यिय<. (प्लन्2 किफजिजीय ल6जी) ताथा स्नता स्तार मा प्राणीशास्त्र अथा नस्पकिता शास्त्र किषय रहा हा । 7) Admittedly, petitioner completed her post graduation (M.Sc.) in Environmental Science subject and this fact is evident from the mark-sheet annexed along with the petition. Petitioner participated in the recruitment process and initially, she was selected and during the course of document verification, her candidature was rejected vide order dated 4.1.2021 on the ground that petitioner had not completed post graduation in zoology subject. 8) Mr. Choubey has made an attempt to demonstrate that both the degrees i.e. M.Sc. (Environmental Science) and M.Sc. (Zoology) are equivalent. He has placed reliance on Inder Sain (supra) 5 wherein issue of equivalence was not involved at all, rather the services of Inder Sain were terminated on the ground that degree of M.Sc. in Environmental Science is not equivalent to M.Sc. in Biology therefore, in my opinion, petitioner would not get any help from this decision. 9) It is well settled principle of law that equivalence of educational degree is a complex academic and technical matter and courts cannot declare different qualifications of courses equivalent on their own, nor can they mandate that an employer accept degree as equivalent unless recruiting rules explicitly provide for it. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others Versus Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Others1 held in paragraph 26 as under :- 26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. in the subsequent decision in Anita'. The decision in Jyoti K.K. 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 presupposes 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 K.K.5 turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a 1. (2019) 2 SCC 404 6 higher qualification could presuppose 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 Bench¹ of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision¹ of the Division Bench. 10) In Shifana P.S. Versus State of Kerala & Others2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in paragraphs 13 to 15 held as under :- 13. This Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sk. Imtiyaz Ahmad held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the 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. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India, a three- Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwals held that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published. 15.The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that the University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10-10-2011 verifying that BSc (Polymer Chemistry) course of the said University is recognised as equivalent to its BSc (Chemistry) course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this Court in Unnikrishnan 2. (2024) 8 SCC 309 7 CV4. In view of the settled principles of law flowing from the above precedents, we are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for the post advertised vide Notification dated 30-4-2008. 11) In North Delhi Municipal Corporation Versus Kavinder & Others3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employer was best suited to judge whether the degree of a candidate was in an allied subject, unless such assessment was perverse to the requirements prescribed and the courts have no reason to interfere. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 9 read as under :- 8. While assessing merits of the rival contentions, we must at the outset have due regard to the basis which has been adopted by the first respondent in support of his contention that he fulfills the eligibility requirements. The categoric position of the first respondent is that during the course of the MBA degree programme, he had studied the subjects of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. Having regard to this position, the issue which falls for determination is whether this would lead the Court to the conclusion that the first respondent fulfills the eligibility requirements. The eligibility requirements stipulated in the advertisement are that the candidate must have a post graduate degree or diploma in (i) Social Work; or (ii) Labour Welfare; or (iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel Management; or (v) in any other allied subject of a recognized University/institution or equivalent. 9. The first respondent completed the MBA degree programme from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The mark sheets which have been relied upon by the first respondent indicate that during the course of the second semester, he studied Human Resource Management as a subject. In the fourth semester, the first respondent had a course in Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. Studying these two subjects would not lead to the conclusion that the first respondent holds a post 3. (2020) 6 SCR 13 8 graduate degree or diploma in the disciplines which have been specifically spelt out in the advertisement or in any allied subject. The MBA degree cannot be regarded as allied to a post graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management. The recruitment was being made to the service of the appellant. The advertisement did not specifically provide how equivalence was to be established between a postgraduate degree/diploma in the subjects specified in the advertisement and a postgraduate degree/diploma in an allied subject. The appellant as an employer was best suited to judge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an allied subject. Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to the requirements prescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere. We are of the view that the Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that the first respondent was qualified merely because he studied two subjects as a part of his MBA degree programme, namely, Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. The High Court has simply affirmed the view of the Tribunal. 12) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, in my opinion, no case is made for interference. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 13) Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. 14) No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.18 15:01:20 +0530