AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Dr. Anand Singh Khati, Member (A):
The present Original Application (O.A.) has been preferred by the applicant, who was a candidate for the post of PGT (Chemistry) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a)Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 and direct the Respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of PGT Chemistry.
(b)Direct the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant.
(c)Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The applicant had also prayed for interim relief that one post of PGT (Chemistry), stated to have remained vacant in Jammu Region on account of rejection of her candidature, may not be filled up till the outcome of the O.A.”
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents issued Advertisement No.15/2022 for recruitment to various posts, including 167 vacancies for the post of PGT (Chemistry), out of which 45 vacancies were reserved for OBC candidates. The applicant applied for the post under the OBC category and appeared in the written examination held on 18.02.2023.
It was submitted that the applicant cleared the written examination and was thereafter called for interview held on 16.05.2023. According to the applicant, all her documents were verified at the time of interview. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of the written examination and interview, a provisional select list was issued by the respondents on 27.10.2023 and the name of the applicant appeared at Serial No.24 therein. She was allotted Jammu Region in the provisional select list. However, despite her selection, no appointment letter was issued to her. On making a telephonic inquiry, she was informed that there was an issue regarding her eligibility.
The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 02.11.2023 requesting that she be appointed to the post of PGT (Chemistry). Since no response was received, she submitted another representation through email dated 29.07.2024 and thereafter a further representation dated 21.11.2024. The respondents, however, rejected the applicant's request vide order dated 18.03.2025, stating that she did not possess the requisite qualification at the Post Graduate level, namely Master's Degree in Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry. The impugned order referred to the communication issued by KVS Headquarters dated 10.03.2025 as well as the earlier communication dated 06.12.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant possesses M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry and that the said qualification is equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry. In support of the contention, reliance was placed upon various notifications issued by universities, including the notification of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, which, according to the applicant, specifically recognises M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry as equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry. The relevant material placed on record also contains an entry recognising “M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry to M.Sc. Chemistry” as equivalent.
It was further submitted that KVS itself, in the Recruitment Rules issued in the year 2025, recognised equivalent Master's Degree in Chemistry for the post of PGT (Chemistry). The applicant relied upon the said Recruitment Rules to contend that the respondents themselves recognise equivalence in the relevant qualification.
Learned counsel also relied upon the case of Seema Kumari, who, according to the applicant, possessed M.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Chemistry and was appointed by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti pursuant to a recruitment advertisement issued in 2022 for PGT (Chemistry), where the prescribed qualification was Master's Degree in Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry. It was submitted that the applicant's case should also be considered on the same principle.
The applicant had earlier filed O.A. No.1613/2025 before this Tribunal, which was withdrawn at the stage of admission on 05.05.2025 with liberty to file a fresh O.A. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant possesses the requisite educational qualification in substance and that the rejection of her candidature merely on the basis of the nomenclature “M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry” was unjustified.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondents had wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan C.V. vs. Union of India. According to the applicant, the said judgment was distinguishable because, in that case, the candidate had failed to produce any notification showing the qualification relied upon by him to be equivalent to the prescribed qualification, whereas in the present case the applicant had produced the notification of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University along with the O.A. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmikant Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., SLP (C) No.18907/2025, and submitted that insisting solely upon the title or nomenclature of a degree without considering the actual curriculum would amount to elevating form over substance.
It was submitted that during her M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry course the applicant had studied General Chemistry, including Physical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry. These are the three branches of Chemistry which a PGT (Chemistry) is required to teach. Learned counsel further submitted that General Chemistry studied by the applicant in M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry is common to various M.Sc. Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry courses and, therefore, the title of the degree by itself could not be treated as determinative of eligibility.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant's marksheet had been placed on record to demonstrate the subjects studied by her and that the respondents had rejected her candidature without properly appreciating the equivalence of the qualification and the actual subjects studied. It was accordingly submitted that the applicant had fulfilled the essential educational qualification for the post of PGT (Chemistry) and that the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 deserved to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the O.A. and supported the impugned order.
At the outset, learned counsel submitted that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, fully financed by the Government of India, Ministry of Education, and that its service conditions are governed by the KVS Education Code and applicable Recruitment Rules. It was submitted that KVS had issued Advertisement No.15/2022 on 02.12.2022 for various Officers Cadre, Teaching and Non-Teaching posts. The online application portal was opened on 05.12.2022 and the last date for submission of applications was 02.01.2023. The written examination for PGT (Chemistry) was conducted on 18.02.2023 and candidates were shortlisted for interview on the basis of their marks in the written examination.
Learned counsel drew attention to the essential qualification prescribed in the detailed advertisement for PGT (Chemistry), which required either a two-year Integrated Post Graduate M.Sc. Course of Regional College of Education of NCERT in the concerned subject or a Master's Degree from a recognised university with at least 50% marks in aggregate in the specified subject. For PGT (Chemistry), the specified subjects at Post Graduate level were Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry. The advertisement further prescribed B.Ed. or equivalent degree and proficiency in teaching in Hindi and English. It was further submitted that Clause VIII of the General Instructions to candidates specifically empowered KVS to verify eligibility at any point of time before or after completion of the selection process. It was clearly provided that even if an admit card had been issued, if a candidate was subsequently found ineligible at any stage, including at the time of joining or thereafter, the candidature could be summarily rejected.
Learned counsel submitted that at the time of verification of the applicant's documents before issuance of the offer of appointment, it was found that she possessed M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry and not a Master's Degree in Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry. It was specifically contended that the applicable Recruitment Rules did not use the expression “equivalent” in relation to the essential qualification prescribed for PGT (Chemistry). Therefore, according to the respondents, possession of M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry could not automatically be treated as possession of M.Sc. Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry.
Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan C.V. and submitted that equivalence of academic qualifications is a technical academic matter which cannot be implied or assumed. According to the respondents, any decision regarding equivalence by the academic body should be by a specific order or resolution duly published.
It was submitted that the notification dated 02.05.2023 issued by Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, relied upon by the applicant, was merely a notification and, according to the respondents, did not constitute the specific order or resolution contemplated in the aforesaid judgment. Consequently, it was argued that the said notification could not establish that the applicant possessed the qualification prescribed by KVS for PGT (Chemistry).
Learned counsel further submitted that the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No.15/2022 had already been completed, offers of appointment had been issued to the selected candidates and the selected candidates had joined their respective places of posting. It was also submitted that the applicant had relied upon the Recruitment Rules issued in 2025, whereas the recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No.15/2022 was governed by the Recruitment Rules which were in force from 01.06.2012. The respondents placed on record a copy of the Recruitment Rules applicable from 01.06.2012. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the applicant did not possess the prescribed educational qualification and that there was no illegality in the decision taken by the respondents. The O.A. was therefore liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and carefully gone through the pleadings, documents placed on record, Recruitment Rules and the judgments relied upon by the parties.
We have also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the subsequent Recruitment Rules/Notification provide for consideration of equivalent qualifications and, therefore, the qualification possessed by the applicant, namely, M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry, ought to have been treated as an eligible qualification for the post of PGT (Chemistry). In this regard, it is necessary to bear in mind that the recruitment in question was initiated pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022 issued by the respondents. The eligibility of the candidates participating in the said recruitment has, therefore, to be determined with reference to the Recruitment Rules and the terms and conditions of the advertisement governing the recruitment process. It is a settled principle that once a recruitment process has commenced with the issuance of an advertisement, the candidates participating therein are entitled to be considered in accordance with the rules and conditions applicable to that recruitment. A subsequent amendment in the Recruitment Rules ordinarily operates prospectively unless the amended Rules expressly or by necessary implication provide for retrospective application. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the recruitment process commences with the issuance of the advertisement and encompasses the various stages of scrutiny of applications, examination, interview and preparation of the select list. The Supreme Court has also held that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by participating in a selection process or by finding a place in a select list. However, where a candidate is otherwise eligible, the candidate acquires a right to be considered in accordance with the rules and conditions governing the recruitment at the relevant point of time. In the absence of retrospective operation of the amended Rules, the selection is ordinarily required to be completed under the Rules and orders which were in force when the recruitment was initiated.
In the present case, the recruitment was initiated by Advertisement No. 15/2022. The essential educational qualification prescribed therein for PGT (Chemistry) specifically referred to a Master's Degree from a recognised university with the prescribed percentage of marks in the specified subjects, including Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry. The qualification of M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry possessed by the applicant was not expressly included in the prescribed qualification. The applicant cannot, therefore, derive an advantage from a subsequent amendment of the Recruitment Rules unless such amendment is shown to have retrospective application to the recruitment already initiated pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022. The principle that a subsequent amendment cannot ordinarily be applied to a recruitment already initiated is also founded upon the requirement that all eligible candidates participating in a particular recruitment should be governed by the same eligibility conditions. If, after commencement of the recruitment process, the eligibility criteria are altered and such altered criteria are applied only to some candidates, it may result in unequal treatment of similarly situated candidates who participated in the same selection process under the conditions originally notified.
We are also unable to accept the contention that the subsequent Recruitment Rules can be applied to the present recruitment merely because they contain a provision concerning equivalent qualifications. The recruitment in question had already been initiated and substantially proceeded on the basis of the Rules and conditions then prevailing. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the subsequent amendment was intended to operate retrospectively or that the respondents were directed to reopen or modify the eligibility criteria of the recruitment conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022. A subsequent change in the Recruitment Rules cannot, in the absence of retrospective operation, be read into an earlier recruitment process.
The submission of the applicant, if accepted, would effectively amount to applying the subsequently modified eligibility criteria to a recruitment which had already commenced under the earlier Rules. Such an approach would alter the conditions of recruitment after the commencement of the selection process and would also have the potential of disturbing the uniformity of the eligibility criteria applicable to all candidates who had participated pursuant to the same advertisement.
We further find that there is no infirmity in the respondents having considered the applicant's eligibility with reference to the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement applicable to Advertisement No. 15/2022. It is also relevant that the applicant's claim is not founded upon an express provision in the Recruitment Rules applicable to Advertisement No. 15/2022 recognising M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry as equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry. The applicant seeks to derive such equivalence principally from the subsequent Recruitment Rules and from the notification relied upon by her. As already discussed, the question of equivalence of qualifications is essentially an academic and technical matter and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of similarity in the nomenclature of subjects or because certain branches of Chemistry may form part of the curriculum of the applicant's degree. The fact that the applicant was permitted to participate in the written examination and interview, or that her name subsequently appeared in the provisional select list, does not cure the absence of the prescribed essential qualification. The respondents retained the authority, in terms of the conditions of the advertisement, to verify eligibility and educational qualifications at the stage of document verification and thereafter. Participation in the selection process does not create an indefeasible right to appointment where the candidate is subsequently found not to fulfil the prescribed essential qualification.
We have also considered the submission that denial of appointment to the applicant would be arbitrary since she had obtained sufficient marks and was placed in the provisional select list. In our considered view, merit in the written examination or inclusion in a provisional select list cannot substitute the essential educational qualification prescribed for the post. Eligibility is a condition precedent to consideration for appointment, and a candidate who does not fulfill the prescribed essential qualification cannot claim appointment merely on the basis of marks obtained in the selection process. Thus, on a cumulative consideration of the Recruitment Rules applicable to the recruitment, the terms of Advertisement No. 15/2022, the qualification possessed by the applicant and the subsequent amendment relied upon by her, we do not find any legal infirmity in the decision of the respondents to examine her eligibility with reference to the Rules applicable to the recruitment in question. We also do not find any arbitrariness or discrimination in applying the same eligibility criteria to the candidates participating in the recruitment. The applicant, therefore, cannot claim appointment on the basis of the subsequently modified Recruitment Rules.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the challenge to the impugned order dated 18.03.2025. The respondents were justified in examining the applicant's educational qualification with reference to the Recruitment Rules and conditions governing Advertisement No. 15/2022. The Original Application, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Tribunal and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the O.A is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.