Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the petitioner challenged the rejection of her candidature for the post of Lecturer (Physical Education) at Government Teachers Training Colleges in Bihar, advertised through Advertisement No. 03/2016. The main issue revolved around whether her qualification, M.A. (Physical Education) from the Global Open University, Nagaland, was equivalent to M.P.Ed, the prescribed qualification for the post.
The petitioner had successfully cleared the written exam and was called for an interview. However, her final result was withheld, and her candidature was canceled based on a clarification issued by the Bihar Education Department stating that her degree did not meet the required qualification.
The petitioner argued that her degree was UGC-recognized and should be considered equivalent to M.P.Ed. She cited judgments from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the precedent where M.A. (Education) was considered equivalent to M.Ed. She also highlighted that no institute in Bihar offers an M.P.Ed degree, making the condition impractical.
Despite these arguments, the Court found that the advertisement clearly specified M.P.Ed as the essential qualification and made no mention of equivalent degrees. Since no expert committee had certified the equivalency of her degree with M.P.Ed, and the selection process was already concluded, the Court declined to intervene and dismissed her petition.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the importance of meeting exact eligibility criteria as mentioned in job advertisements. For the government, it ensures uniform standards in educational qualifications for teaching positions. For aspirants, it serves as a caution to verify degree compatibility before applying. It also emphasizes that the judiciary will not override recruitment norms without authoritative validation.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Decision of the Court
-
Whether M.A. (Physical Education) is equivalent to M.P.Ed as per the advertisement?
-
Decision: No. The court held that the degree of M.A. (Physical Education) is not equivalent to M.P.Ed in absence of explicit recognition or expert committee endorsement.
-
-
Whether the petitioner was wrongly excluded from the final selection list?
-
Decision: No. The selection process followed the eligibility norms as per the advertisement.
-
Judgments Referred by Parties
-
Santosh Dagar v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. (Delhi HC)
-
Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (2015) 17 SCC 709
-
Anand Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by the Court
-
Anand Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020 (Discussed but found inapplicable)
Case Title
Mamta Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1971 of 2021
Citation(s)- 2024(4) PLJR (616)
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan
Names of Advocates
-
Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Adv. for Petitioner
-
Mr. Lalit Kishore, AG for the State of Bihar
-
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha for BPSC
-
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh for NCTE
 with M.P.Ed for Lecturer Post){kind=link}
0 Comments