Holding

The requirement of a Master's degree in Sociology cannot be satisfied by a Master's degree in Education; the appellant is ineligible and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Jayshrikumari Ishvarbhai Patel applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak (Assistant Teacher) in Sociology under the Scheduled Tribe reservation. She was rejected because she held a B.A. in Sociology but only an M.A. in Education, not an M.A. in Sociology as required by the Government Higher Secondary Teacher, Class‑III, Procedure for Selection Rules, 2019. The appellant argued that any master's degree containing a sociology subject or the alleged non‑availability of an M.A. Sociology programme at the time of her study should satisfy the requirement. The Court examined Rule 7(b) and the Appendix, finding that the rules expressly demand a postgraduate degree in Sociology, and held that the employer’s discretion on qualifications is paramount. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court distinguished the present case and rejected the appellant’s contentions. The appeal was dismissed and the interim stay vacated.

Issues considered

The eligibility requirement of a Master's degree in Sociology under Rule 7(b) of the selection rules.
Whether a Master's degree in Education with a sociology subject satisfies the requirement.
Whether the alleged non‑existence of an M.A. Sociology programme at the time of the appellant’s graduation defeats the eligibility criterion.
The extent of the employer’s discretion in determining educational qualifications for teaching posts.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 309 (proviso)
University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 3

Subjects

recruitmenteligibilityeducational qualificationteacher appointmentreservationrule interpretationemployer discretionjudicial review

Judgment

C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Reserved On : 29/04/2026
Pronounced On : 08/05/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1164 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/8036/2025

With

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1164 of 2025

==================================================
JAYSHRIKUMARI ISHVARBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. KRISHNA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

[1] The appellant herein had made an application for being
recruited as Shikshan Sahayak (Assistant Teacher) in the
subject of Sociology. The appellant had applied under the
reserved category of Scheduled Tribe.

[2] On consideration of all the applications that had been
received, a merit list was published, in respect of the
aforementioned post, for both the government schools as well as
for the Government-aided schools. In these lists, the appellant

Page 1 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

was placed at serial No.34 and serial No.31 respectively. In the
last week of March 2025, the appellant was called for document
verification, which the appellant attended and submitted her
documents.

[3] The respondents, on verification of the documents of the
all the candidates including that of the appellant, proceeded to
submit a list of rejected candidates. In this list of rejected
candidates, the name of the appellant was found.

[4] The reason for the rejection, which is not in dispute, is
that the appellant, though possessed a degree in Sociology, did
not have a Masters degree in Sociology, even though she had
satisfied all other requirements. The appellant submitted a
representation against the rejection, but the same was not
acceded to. Consequently, she approached this Court by filing a
writ petition.

[5] The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the
contentions advanced by the appellant, came to the conclusion
that the requirement of the recruitment rule was that the
appellant should possess a Masters degree in Sociology, and it
was not sufficient for her to possess only a graduate degree in
Sociology. Since, admittedly, the appellant had only a Masters
degree in Arts in Education, she did not satisfy the eligibility
requirements, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss
the writ petition.

Page 2 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

[6] As a consequence, the appellant is in appeal.

[7] The recruitment to the post of Shikshan Sahayak
(Assistant Teacher) is prescribed under the rules framed by the
Government of Gujarat in exercise of the powers conferred by
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and which are
titled as Government Higher Secondary Teacher, Class III,
Procedure for Selection Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Rules”).

[8] Rule 4 of the said Rules stipulates that a selection
committee shall select persons for appointment to the posts
from amongst the persons who are qualified to be appointed in
accordance with the provisions of the said rules.

[9] Under Rule 5 of the said Rules, the selection committee is
required to invite applications, scrutinize them, and recommend
the names of candidates for being appointed.

[10] Rule 7 of the said Rules prescribes the eligibility criteria.
The first condition relates to the age of the candidate, with
which we are not concerned in this writ petition. The second
condition, with which we are concerned, is as follows:-

“(b) possess the minimum educational qualification of Master's Degree as
specified in column 4 and 5 against each of the subject specified in
Appendix-l, and a Bachelor's degree in Education or Shixa Visarad
(GUJARAT VIDYAPITH) or D.B.Ed or G.B.T.C as specified in column 6 or 7
against each of the subject specified in Appendix-l obtained from any of
the Universities or Institutions established or incorporated by an Act of
Parliament or a State Legislature in India or any other Educational
institution recognised as such or declared to be deemed as a University
under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;”

Page 3 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

[11] The qualifications prescribed are at Appendix-I in respect
of Sociology and read as follows:-
“Appendix-I
[See rule 7 (b) and (c)]
Educational Qualification required for each subject for Recruitment of Government
Higher Secondary Teacher, Class-III.
Sr. SUBJECT EDUCATIO MINIMUM MINIMUM M.Ed/ SUBJECT
No. NAL EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL SHIXA OF
QUALIFIC QUALIFICATION QUALIFICATION PARANG TEACHE
ATION IN AND SUBJECT IN (B.Ed/SHIXA AT RS
UNDER POST GRATUATION VISARAD (GUJARAT (GUJARA APPTITU
GRATUATI VIDYAPITH)/ T DE TEST
ON IN D.B.Ed/G.B.T.C.) VIDYAPI (HIGHER
SPECIALIZ TH.) (if SECOND
ATION Possesses ARY).
SUBJECT’ )
QUALIFI SUBJECT METHOD METHOD
CATION -1 -2
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
12 SOCIOLOGY B.A. MA SOCIOLO ANY ONE Anyone M.Ed/ SOCIOLO
(SOCIOLO GY SUBJECT subject SHIXA GY
GY) except PARANG
method-1 AT
mentione
d in
column
(5).
13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

[12] As could be seen from the said Appendix, the educational
qualification, insofar as the undergraduate level is concerned,
for the subject of Sociology, is that the candidate must possess a
B.A. in Sociology.

[13] The minimum educational qualification and subject
prescribed in postgraduation, for the post of Sociology is M.A.,
and the subject in which the M.A. is required to be secured is
Sociology. On a plain reading of this Appendix, it is clear that in

Page 4 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

order to be appointed as a Shikshan Sahayak, in the subject of
Sociology, the candidate should have an undergraduate degree
of B.A. in Sociology and a postgraduate degree of M.A. in the
subject of Sociology.

[14] It is not in dispute that the appellant possesses only the
undergraduate degree of B.A. in Sociology but does not possess
an M.A. in Sociology but, as stated above, possesses only M.A.
in Education.

[15] The argument of the learned counsel Mr. I. G. Joshi for the
appellant is essentially that in respect of the undergraduate
degree, it is specifically stated as B.A. in Sociology, whereas in
respect of the postgraduate qualification, a distinction is made
that it could be M.A., and so long as one of the subjects is
Sociology, the candidate would be qualified.

[16] In our view, such a reading of the rule would be improper
and cannot be accepted. It stands to logic that if the
Government wants to appoint a teacher for the subject of
Sociology, that teacher should have an undergraduate degree in
Sociology and also a postgraduate degree in Sociology. This is
basically because they would want the selected candidate to be
an academic expert in Sociology, which would greatly assist and
aid the students who wish to learn the subject of Sociology.

Page 5 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

[17] It is settled law that it is not for the candidate or for any
other entity to determine the educational requirement for as
teaching post. As to what are the exact educational
qualifications required for a post which requires a teacher to
impart education should obviously be left entirely to the
discretion of the employer, and a prospective candidate cannot
contend that the educational qualification that he or she
possesses meets the criteria prescribed or that it would suffice
and be accepted.

[18] Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter sought to put
forth an argument that, as a matter of fact, there was no such
course as M.A. in Sociology at all, and therefore this
requirement will have to be read down to mean that it also
brings within its purview candidates who had an M.A. in which
one of the subjects was Sociology. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel
seeks to place reliance on the fact that in the M.A. that the
appellant had secured, had a subject called "Sociological
Foundation of Education," and this subject was essentially a
Sociology subject and therefore, the degree that the appellant
possessed was adequate.

[19] In light of the argument advanced by learned counsel for
the appellant that no other university had offered a course M.A.
Sociology, the State was directed to file an affidavit in response
to this assertion.

Page 6 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

[20] A further affidavit of the appellant was also filed, in which
it was asserted that at the Indian Institute of Teacher
Education, Gandhinagar, no Masters degree in Sociology was
offered. It was also asserted that there was no college in the
district of Navsari which offered a Masters course in Sociology.
Thus, the entire premise of the appellant’s argument gravitated
to the assertion that there was no course of M.A. in Sociology
offered, either in at the Indian Institute of Teacher Education,
Gandhinagar (from where she obtained an M.A. Education) or
for that matter in the entire District of Navsari.

[21] A reply to this further affidavit was filed by the Assistant
Director, Commissioner of Schools, in which it was clearly
stated that there was indeed a course of M.A. in Sociology being
offered at Gujarat University as well as Veer Narmad South
Gujarat University. It was pointed out that the appellant had, in
fact, secured her B.A. in Sociology from Veer Narmad South
Gujarat University, and therefore it was obvious that she was
very well aware that an M.A. in Sociology course was available
for pursuing in the very university from which she had
graduated. It was therefore contended that the assertion that
no such course was offered was incorrect.

[22] In response, the appellant contended that at Veer Narmad
South Gujarat University, this course was introduced only in
2019, and she had obtained her Master’s degree in 2017. It was
therefore contended that at the time of her securing a

Page 7 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

postgraduate degree, there was no such course available.

[23] This argument of learned counsel had to be rejected in its
entirety. It is noted here that the appellant does not deny the
fact that Gujarat University did, in fact, offer a course in M.A. in
Sociology, and it is thus clear that the argument that no such
course was offered by any university is palpably false. If there
are universities which offer an M.A. in Sociology, this by itself,
presupposes that the employer, i.e., the State, was aware of the
availability of holders of M.A. in Sociology and those persons
would be the most suited persons to impart education to
Sociology students. As stated earlier, it is for the employer to
decide which educational qualifications are appropriate for the
job of teaching Sociology, that was on offer, and it is not for an
aspiring candidate to insist that the qualification that he or she
possesses be considered as adequate.

[24] In this view of the matter, the argument of learned counsel
for the appellant does not merit consideration.

[25] However, learned counsel for the appellant sought to
place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant Sharma versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2712. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
dealing with a matter in which the facts were as under:-

Page 8 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

“31. It is not disputed that the advertisement prescribed as the
minimum academic qualification a “Postgraduate degree in
Statistics from a Government recognised University with at least
60% marks or equivalent grade.” The appellant asserted that he
had pursued M.Com. with Business Statistics and Indian
Economic Statistics as principal subjects and that this satisfies
the academic qualification requirement of the post. The appellant
further assured, which is not disputed by the respondents, that
no Government university in Madhya Pradesh offers a
postgraduate course titled “M.Com (Statistics)” or any
standalone PG programme exclusively titled “Statistics”.”

[26] It is in this context that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that insisting solely on the title of the degree, without
considering the actual curriculum, was incorrect. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the very said decision, has held that “the
question as to whether a particular qualification is equivalent to
the one prescribed is primarily for the employer or the expert
body to decide, and the Courts, while exercising the power of
judicial review, should not sit in appeal over such
determination.” A judgment rendered in the context, that there
was no such course offered in a particular State in relation to a
subject which was demanded in the notification, would be
wholly inapplicable to the present case when there is
indisputably Universities which have offered MA in Sociology.

[27] The learned counsel for the appellant also sought to place
reliance on the judgment of a coordinate Division Bench of this
Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 2022,
decided on 22.08.2024, to contend that this Court had
accepted that if there was a Master’s degree in Industrial

Page 9 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Chemistry with a graduation degree in respect of Chemistry, the
same would satisfy the requirement. It is to be stated here that,
in that case, the State had, in fact, admitted that there could not
be a postgraduate degree in Chemistry alone and a candidate
would have to opt for a specialized subject in Chemistry, and the
candidate therein had secured a Masters Degree in Industrial
Chemistry. In the present case, the State has categorically
taken up the contention and filed an affidavit in support of it,
contending that there was indeed a course offered in M.A.
Sociology by two universities in Gujarat, and therefore the said
judgment can be of no avail.

[28] Reliance was also placed on another Division Bench
judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.554 of 2023, decided
on 31.07.2023, in which the decision in Dulla Aarti Dilipbhai
and others versus State of Gujarat being Special Civil
Application No.12740 of 2017 and allied matters, was relied
upon. The facts therein were that only in the year 2018, the
subject of Statistics was provided to be the main subject
required in the graduation and post-graduation level, and
therefore this requirement of having those qualifications could
not be made applicable, retrospectively. In this case, as already
stated above, there was a course in M.A. Sociology offered at
the time the appellant pursued her Masters degree and
therefore the said decision can be of no avail.

Page 10 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

[29] The reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the
appellant on a decision rendered in Special Civil Application
No.11119 of 2017, decided on 28.07.2025, which is stated
to have been affirmed by the Division Bench, cannot also be
made applicable because that was a case in which the
contention advanced was that the candidate therein had
possessed a Master's degree in Environmental Science and
therefore was ineligible to be given weightage. This Court, in
the said decision, noticed that as a matter of fact, a Master of
Science degree was granted to the candidate therein, and that
too specifically in the subject of Environmental Science, and
therefore such a Master's degree would have to be construed as
a Master's degree in Science. Obviously that is not the position
in the present case.

[30] In light of the above, it is clear that none of the
contentions advanced by the appellant possess any merit.

[31] The Learned Single Judge has by the impugned order has
also come to the conclusion that the notification and the Rule
specifically required candidates to possess a Masters Degree in
Sociology and since the appellant did not admittedly possess the
said Mastrs Degree she was no qualified to be considered for
appointment to the post of Shiksak Sahayak in Sociology. The
reasoning of the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with
and the same concurs with our reasoning as well. The appeal is
therefore dismissed.

Page 11 of 12
C/LPA/1164/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

[32] Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated forthwith.

[33] All pending applications stand consigned to records.

(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)

(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KUMAR DHARMENDRA(HC01071), GOV, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 18:05:05

Page 12 of 12