STATE OF UTTRAKHAND & ORS.versusDEEP CHANDRA TEWARI & ANR.

                       [2013] 17 S.C.R. 1016


A               STATE OF UTTRAKHAND & ORS.
                                  v.
                DEEP CHANDRA TEWARI & ANR.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 9902 of 2013)
                       NOVEMBER 01, 2013
B
         [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

       Service Law - Recruitment - Qualification - Post of
  Assistant Teacher (General) - Rejection of the candidature
C of respondents on the groL..1d that they did not hold the decree
  as per the prescribed rules and notification - Justification -
  Held: Justified - In the instant case, essential education
  qualification prescribed in the relevant rules was B.Ed.
  Degree, whereas the respondents had done B.Ed.
D Specialisation in Vocational Education - Action of the
  Government cannot be faulted with, in rejecting the
  candidature of the Respondents because they did not have
  the qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement viz. B.Ed.
  Degree simplicitor - Assistant Teachers were meaflt to impart
E education to students at primary level - For teaching primary
  students, subjects studied while doing basic B.Ed. Degree
  would be relevant and appropriate - For teaching such
  students, B. Ed. with Specialisation in vocational education
  would be of no use as those students are not imparted
F vocational education, which is the thrust in the degree
  obtained by the Respondents - Uttrakhand Subordinate
  Education (Training Graduate Grade) Service Rules.

       The Director, School Education, Uttrakhand, issued
  advertisement, inviting applications from eligible persons
G for appointment as Assistant Teachers (General) by way
  of direct recruitment. The essential education
  qualification prescribed in the relevant rules was B.Ed.
  Degree, whereas the respondents had done B.Ed.

H                               1016
   STATE OF UTTRAKHAND v. DEEP CHANDRA              1017
                  TEWARI

Specialisation in Vocational Education. On the premise       A
that the Respondents did not hold the decree as per the
prescribed rules and notification, applications submitted
by them were not considered. Aggrieved, the
Respondents filed Writ Petition, which was allowed by
the High Court, and therefore the present appeals.           B

    Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD:1. For the post in question i.e. Assistant
Teacher (General), the qualification is simply Bachelor
degree in any of two subjects, Geography, Economics,         C
Political Science and History from any university
established by law in India, or L.T. Diploma from any
training institution/degree college. Respondents had
done f 'Cd Specialisation in Vocational Education. If
B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education was the    D
required qualification, then it would have been
specifically mentioned in the notification, which has not
been done. Consequently, this Court has to take it that
the B.Ed. degree mentioned in the advertisement is B.Ed.
degree simplicitor and not B.Ed. with Specialisation in      E
Vocational Education. The post to be filled up i.e.
Assistant Teacher (General) nowhere indicates that for
the purpose of appointment to the said post,
specialization in vocational education is a necessary
requirement. [Paras 9] [1023-C-F]                            F

     2. No doubt, normal rule would be that candidate with
higher qualification is d.eemed to fulfill the lower
qualification prescribed for a post. But that higher
qualification has to be in the same channel. Further, this
rule will be subject to an exception. Where the              G
prescription. of a particular qualification is found to be
relevant for discharging the functions of that post and at
the same time, the Government is able to demonstrate
that for want of said qualification a candidate may not be
suitable for the post, even if he possesses "better"         H
    1018    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A qualification but that "better" qualification has no
   relevance with the functions attached with the post. In the
   present case; the situation falls in this excepted category.
   The Assistant Teacher is meant to impart education to
   students at primary level. For teaching primary students,
B subjects studied while doing basic B.Ed. Degree would
   be relevant and appropriate. For teaching such students,
   B.Ed. with Specialisation in vocational education would
   be of no use as those students are not imparted
   vocational education,.wtiich is the thrust in the degree
c obtained by the Respondents. In the instanf'case,
   proficiency in the basic subjects taught at primary level
   is required and thus vocational training would not serve
   any purpose. Thus, when in the instant case, essential
   education qualification is B.Ed. Degree which is
D prescribed in the relevant rules, having statutory flavour,
   the action of the Governlnent cannot be faulted with, in
   rejecting the candidature of the Respondents, who had
   done B.Ed. Specialisation· in Vocational Education,
   because of the reason that they do not h·ave the
  ·qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement viz. 8.Ed.
E Degree simplicitor. [Para 11] [1023-G-H; 1024-A-E]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    9902 of 2013.

F       From the Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2009 of the High
    Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 9 of
    2009.
                              WITH

G C.A. Nos. 9903, 9904, 9905 and 9906 of 2013.

        Rachana Srivastava for the Appellants.

        Ani.I Nag, Raj Singh Rana, Dr. V.8. Singh for the
    Respondents.
H
                ,,
   STATE OF UTTRAKHAND v. DEEP CHANDRA                   1019
                  TEWARI

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    A

    K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. The Director, School Education, Uttrakhand, issued an
advertisement dated 7th August, 2008, inviting applications
from eligible persons for appointment as Assistant Teachers B
(General) by way of direct recruitment. Para 5 of the·
advertisement referred to the educational qualifications,
operative portion bf wtiich reads as follows :-        '

     "1.   Bachelor degree in any of two subjects Geography,      c
           Economics, Political Science and History from any
           university e~tablished by law in India.

     2.    L.T. Diploma from any training institution/degree
           college."                                     ·
                                                                  D
     3. In response to the aforesaid advertisement,
Respondents applied mentioning the qualifications as B.Ed.
with Specialisation in Vocational .Education.. Since the
Respondents did not hold the decree as per the prescribed
rules and notification, applications submitted by the             E
Respondents were not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the
Respondents filed Writ Petition No.1035 of 2007 before the
High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital. Learned Single Judge of
the High Court vide order dated 1.9.2008 allowed the Writ
Petition and set aside the rejection of the candidature of the    F
Respondents for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade).
Direetion was also given to the Appellant to process the
applications submitted by the Respondents. Aggrieved by the
said order, the Appellants took up the matter in appeal before
the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench          G
dismissed the appeal, against which this appeal has been
preferred.

      3-A. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellants, submitted that there is a marked difference
                                                                  H
    1020    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 17 S.C.R.

A between the B.Ed. degree and the B.Ed. with Specialisation
  in Vocational Education. The advertisement made mention of
  only B.Ed. degree and not B.Ed. with Specialisation in
  Vocational Education. Learned counsel submitted that the High
  Court has committed a grave error in equating the B.Ed.
B degree with Specialisation in Vocational Education with B.Ed.
  degree simplicitor. Learned counsel submitted that the
  appointment of Assistant Teacher (L.T'. Grade) is made to
  impart education to students in schools for which a
  specialisation in vocational educa,tion is not warranted.

C      4. Mr. Anil Nag, learned counsel appearing for the
  Respondents, on the other hand submitted that there is no
  marked difference between B.Ed. simplicitor and the B.Ed.
  degree with Specialisation in Vocational Education. B.Ed.
  degree obtained by the Respondents, it was submitted, is a
D composite degree which takes in its curriculum not only general
  subjects meant for B.Ed. simplicitor, but in addition subjects
  which are necessary for vocational training as well. Further, it
  was pointed out that M.J.P. Rohilkhand University grants B.Ed.
  degree in both general as well as B.Ed. degree with
E Specialisation in Vocational Education. Reference was also
  made to letter dated 13.7.2007 issued by the University.
  Learned counsel submitted that the High Court has rightly held
  that the degree of Bachelor of Education, if passed with
  vocational education from a recognized University, shall not be,
F ignored for the purpose of admission in view of th.e
  advertisement issued by the State Government.

       5. The Government of Uttrakhand, in exercise of powers
  conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
  India, framed the Uttrakhand Subordinate Education (Training
G Graduate Grade) Service Rules for the purpose of regulating
  recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed
  under the said Rules. Rules were notified in the Official Gazette
  on 28th July, 2006. The Rules prescribed the qualification for
  Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade as Bachelor Degree in
H
   STATE OF UTTRAKHAND v. DEEP CHANDRA                     1021
       TEWARI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

concerned subject with the degree in Bachelor of Education          A
(B.Ed.). The subjects approved under B.Ed. are as under:-

     (1)    Teaching in emerging Indian Society.

     (2)     Development of learner and teaching learning
             process.                                               B

     (3)     Essential of Educational Technology and
             Management.

     (4)     Development of Education System in India.
                                                                    c
     (5)     Educational and Mental Measurement.

     (6)     Teaching in Hindi.

     (7)     Teaching of Social Studies.
                                                                    D
      (8)    Practical : Sessions work.

             Practical : Teaching skills.

     6. The Appellants issued an advertisement on 7th August,
2006, inviting applications from eligible persons for               E
appointment as Assistant TeachersfTeachers by way of direct
recruitment. The advertisement contemplated, inter alia, that the
candidates should possess the essential academic
qualifications as follows :-

      (a)    The candidate should be graduate from a                F
             recognized University in two subjects from amongst
             Geography, Economics, Political Science and
             History.

      (b)     The candidate should have L.T. diploma from any       G
            · degree college or educational institution,
              recognized by the State Government or should be
              B.Ed. from any recognized University.

      (c}    It was also provided that the candidate should haver   H
    1022     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A               to the date of publication of the advertisement. The
                educational syllabus should be recognized by
                N.C.T.E. which should be available on the website
                of N.C.T.E. prio'r to the date of advertisement.

8        7. The Respondents, it is seen, had done B.Ed.
    Specialisation in Vocational Education. B.Ed. Specialisation
    in Vocational Education provides th~ following :-

                (1)   Principle and Management in Education.

c               (2)   Psychological teaching Measurement

                (3)   Method of Teaching

                      (a) Business

D                     (b) Hindi

                      (c) History

               (4)    Ateraprenol Development

E              (5) . Typewriting

               (6)    Office Management and Correspondence

               (7)    Practical : Practice Teaching.

F              Comprehensive.

        8. We notice that the appointment of Assistant Teacher
  l.::T. Grade is made to_ impart education to the students in
  schools on the subjects which are being sanctioned in the
  schools. When the advertisement simply says "B.Ed. degree",
G it reveals what the appointing authority meant and what is meant
  is said, written and shown in the advertisement. If we go through
  para 5 of the notification in its entirety, we find wherever
  specialization is required, it has been specifically mentioned
  in the advertisement. For example, for appointment to the post
H
   STATE OF UTTRAKHAND v. DEEP CHANDRA                          1023
    -· TEWARI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

of Assistant Teacher Drawing, the requirement is Bachelor                 A
degree in B.F.A. from any University established by law in India,
for the post of Assistant Teacher Music, it has been stated that
the requirement is Bachelor degree in Instrumental or Vocal in
music from any University established by law in India. For the
post of Assistant Teacher, Home Science, it is stated the                 B
requirement is Bachelor Degree with Home Arts or Home
 Science from any University established by law in India and for
the post of Assistant Teacher Commerce, the requirement is
 Bachelor degree in commerce from any University established
by law in India.                             ·
                                                                          c
     9. We notice, however, for the post in question i.e:
Assistant Teacher (General), the qualification is simply Bachelor
degree in any of two subjects, Geography, Economics, Political
Science and History from any university established by law in
India, or L.T. Diploma from any training institution/degree D
college. If B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education
was the required qualification, then it would ·have been
specifically mentioned in the notification, which has not been
done. Consequently, we have .to take -it that!he B.Ed. degree
mentioned in the advertisement is B.Ed. degreei.s.i~plicitor and· E
not B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education. The post
to be filled up i.e. Assistant. Teacher (General) nowhere
indicates that for the purpose of appointment to the said post,
specialization in vocational education is a necessary
requirement.                                                      F

     10. We are conscious of the principle that when particular
qualifications are prescribed for a post, the candidature of a
candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be rejected
on that basis. No doubt, normal rule would be that candidate
with higher qualification is deemed to fulfill the' lower qualification   G
prescribed for a post. But that higher qualification has to be in
the same channel. Further, this rule will be subject to an
exception. Where the prescription of a particular qualification
is found to be relevant for discharging the functions of that post
                                                                          H
    1024     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A   and at the same time, the Government is able to demonstrate
    that for want of said qualification a candidate may not be
    suitable for the post, even if he possession "better" qualification
    but that "better" qualification has no relevance with the functions
    attached with the post.
B      11. In the present case, we find the situation falling in this
  excepted category. As pointed out above, the Assistant Teacher
  is meant to impart education to students at primary level. For
  teaching primary students, subjects studied while doing basic
  B.Ed. Degree would be relevant and appropriate. For teaching
C such students, B.Ed: with Specialisation in vocational education
  would be of no use as those students are not imparted
  vocational education, which is the thru~t in the degree obtained
  by the Respondents herein. In the instant case, proficiency in
  the basic subjects taught at primary level is required and thus
D vocational training would not serve any purpose. Thus, when we
  find that in the instant case, essential education qualification
  is B.Ed. Degree which is prescribed in the relevant rules, having
  statutory flavour, the action of the Government cannot be faulted
  with, in rejecting the candidature of the Respondents because
E of the reason that they do not have the qualification, as
  mentioned in the advertisement viz. B.Ed. Degree simplicitor.

       12. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the
  judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was affirmed by
F the Division Bench of the High Court. There shall be no order
  as to costs.

    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                               Appeals allowed.