ANAND YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. on 12 October 2020

ANAND YADAV & ORS.

v.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020)

OCTOBER 12, 2020

[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE ANDKRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions – Advertisement issued byrespondent no.2-Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service SelectionCommission inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professorsin various subjects, including Education – Candidature of appellantno.2 having M.Ed. Degree was rejected on the ground that he didnot fulfill the minimum criteria set out by UGC – Subsequentadvertisement issued for the same post did not specify either M.A.(Education) or M.Ed. but specified inter alia a post-graduation withrequisite marks in relevant subject as eligibility – Issue arose if anM.Ed. Degree is equivalent to M.A. (Education) and even if it iscould M.Ed. be said to be a post-graduation in the relevant subject– Expert panel constituted by respondent no.2 inter alia opined thatfor the post of Assistant Professor, degree of M.Ed. as well as M.A.(Education) should be accepted – Accordingly, corrigendum wasissued by respondent no.2 for the posts in question – Challengedby respondent no.3, an applicant under both the advertisements –Division Bench quashed the said corrigendum inter alia holding thatM.Ed. qualified person could not be appointed to the post ofAssistant Professor (Education) – Respondent no.2 decided tochange the qualifications prescribed for the post of AssistantProfessor(Education) treating candidates with M.A. (Education) aseligible for the said post – Candidates with M.Ed. Degree aggrieved– Interim order passed provisionally permitting said candidates toparticipate in selection process – Held: Respondent no.2-employeraccepted recommendation of the expert committee – UGC has alsotaken a stand that insofar as the two degrees are concerned, bothare post graduate degrees – Equivalence authority, NCTE has alsoopined on the basis of an expert committee, that the two can betreated as equivalent for the post of Assistant Professor in Education– Thus, it is neither for respondent no.3 nor for this Court to sit as A

B

CDEF

G

H

Aa court of appeal over the decision of the experts – Impugnedjudgment set aside, challenge to the corrigendum dtd. 11.7.16repelled.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 This Court, at the inception, expresses itsBreservation about the manner in which the writ petition was filedand a decision was taken in the impugned order of the High Courtwithout even calling upon the relevant authorities, i.e., the UGCand the NCTE to put forth their stand. The first authority isundisputedly the one to determine and specify the nomenclatureCof degrees, while the second is the authority of teacher education.A decision based in the absence of concerned authorities is likelyto and has caused confusion. Affected candidates, or at least someof them in a representative capacity, were bound to be heard andno decision could have been taken behind the back of thesecandidates. It is only before this Court that the complete contoursDof the controversy have emerged and the stand of all the relevantparties have been sought to be examined. [Paras 26-28][946-D-G]

1.2 The stand put forth by the UGC/respondent No. 4 isunequivocal in its terms that M.Ed. degree is indeed a master’sEdegree in Education in terms of the notification issued by it underthe UGC Act in terms of Section 22. In that sense, the matter isput to rest in terms of recognition of M.Ed. as a post-graduatedegree by the competent authority. The question of equivalence,as submitted by respondent No.4/UGC was to be left to theFNCTE. It is in view thereof that NCTE was added as a party(respondent No. 5) and has, once again, put forth its positionquite unequivocally. The NCTE has drawn a distinction betweenthe two degrees to the extent that while M.A. (Education) is adegree in the discipline of Education, the M.Ed. degree is apractitioner’s degree. Reference has also been made to aGCommittee constituted in pursuance of the impugned judgment,which is an expert committee. In view of the recognition of theM.Ed. programme of one-year duration, in order to acquire anM.Ed. degree, one has to spend two years after the first degreebecause for an M.Ed. degree, a B.Ed. degree is mandatory. It isH

in these circumstances a conclusion was reached that, from thepoint of view of duration and curricular inputs, M.Ed. qualifiesitself as a master’s programme in Education and is evenrecognised by the UGC and NCTE as such. In a sense this putsto rest one of the controversies raised by respondent No. 3, i.e.,initially M.Ed. was a one-year programme, and only subsequentlyconverted into a two-years programme in 2015, as this very issuehas been examined by an expert committee of the NCTE, andthe NCTE concluded in favour of the appellants. There is also acategorical statement in the last paragraph of the counter affidavitof the NCTE to the effect that the M.Ed. is a master’s degreerecognised by apex bodies like the UGC and NCTE forappointment as Assistant Professor in Education and they arealso eligible for the NET/SLET/JRF. Another important aspectmay also be noticed, i.e., the employer ultimately being the bestjudge of who should be appointed. The choice was of respondentNo. 2. who sought the assistance of an expert committee in viewof the representation of some of the appellants. The eminence ofthe expert committee is apparent from its composition. Thatcommittee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand takenby the appellants, and respondent No. 2 as employer decided toconcur with the same and accepted the committee’s opinion. It isreally not for the appellants or the contesting respondent tocontend how and in what manner a degree should be obtained,which would make them eligible for appointment by respondentNo. 2. [Paras 29-31][946-G-H; 947-A-H]

1.3 It is not this Court’s view that an employer likerespondent No. 2 can do as they please - they are guided andbound by the terms of the UGC Act and the regulationsthereunder, but then here, there is no doubt about the M.Ed.degree being a post graduate degree, in view of not only whatthe UGC stated before this Court, but having promulgated therelevant Regulations as far back as 2010 as amended from timeto time. The issue of equivalence has been rightly considered bythe NCTE and while recognising some distinct aspects of twothe degrees, it has clearly stated that for the job of AssistantProfessors (Education), both are eligible. It is not as if a person ABC

DE

F

G

H

ABC

DE

F

G

H

Awith an M.Ed. degree is eligible for all the posts which wereadvertised for Science, Arts and others. Their eligibility has beenfound only for the post of Assistant Professor (Education), whichis directly relatable to the subject to be taught. The fact that bothM.Ed. and M.A. (Education) degree-holders have to take acommon test for the purposes of NET is not conclusive, but it isBone of the factors to be considered, and once the expert bodybeing the NCTE, inter alia, has taken that aspect intoconsideration apart from other factors to opine equivalence forthe purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor inEducation, it would not be appropriate to take a contra view.CMatters of education must be left to educationists, of coursesubject to being governed by the relevant statutes andregulations. It is not the function of this Court to sit as an expertbody over the decision of the experts, especially when the expertsare all eminent people as apparent from the names as set out.[Paras 32-34][948-A-F]DZahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad& Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404: [2018] 14 SCR 1082 –relied on.

1.4 The impugned order of the High Court has almost beenEpredicated entirely on the judgment in Dr. Prit Singh case, as ifthere was no issue alive to be dealt with, even though thedistinction was recognised in a subsequent judgment of the Dr.Ram Sevak Singh case. Sometimes, without looking into the realratio decidendi, a judgment is followed as a precedent. This iswhat appears to have happened in the impugned order. ThereFare even some other judgments of the High Courts, which inturn were then sought to be relied upon to canvas a propositionthat there is a widespread acceptance of M.Ed. not beingequivalent to M.A. (Education). That they are two differentdegrees is obvious; this is even recognised by the NCTE whileGemphasising the subtle distinction between the two degrees asone being a master’s degree but not a professional degree, whilethe other being a professional degree. If the two degrees areidentical, there is no question of equivalence. The issue of H

equivalence only arises when there are two different degreesand what is to be decided whether for certain purposes they canbe treated as equivalent. This is exactly what has happened as aresult of the respective expert committees set up by respondentNos. 2 & 5. The employer, i.e., respondent No. 2, had acceptedthe recommendation of the expert committee. The UGC has alsotaken a stand that insofar as the two degrees are concerned, bothare post graduate degrees, and the equivalence authority beingrespondent No.5 has also opined on the basis of an expertcommittee, that the two can be treated as equivalent for the postof Assistant Professor in Education. Thus, it is neither for thecontesting party, i.e., respondent No.3, nor for this Court to sitas a court of appeal over the decision of the experts.

Respondent No.3 has in fact been selected in the 2014selection process as per the final list released on 22.5.2018. Theimpugned judgment is not sustainable and has to be set aside,and the challenge to the corrigendum dated 11.7.2016 is repelled.The result having already been computed and awaiting declarationshould now be declared forthwith. [Paras 35-37][949-A-H;950-A-D]

Dr. Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal & Ors. 1993 Supp (1)SCC 714: [1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 337 – distinguished.

Praveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2014 SCC OnLine HP 4307; Dr. Ram Sevak Singh v.Dr. U.P. Singh & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 189; Dr. M.S.Mudhol & Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC591:[1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 115– referred to.

Case Law Reference

[1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 337distinguished Para 10 (i)(1999) 2 SCC 189referred toPara 23 (viii)[2018] 14 SCR 1082relied onPara 23 (x)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A[1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 115referred toPara 24 (vii)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2850

of 2020

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No.16127 of 2017.B

P.S.Patwalia, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr.Advs., Amit Pawan, ManojK. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Ramesh Tripathi, Anuj Chaturvedi, BhaktiVardhan Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Antariksh Singh, RajeevMaheshwaranand Roy, P.Srinivasan, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, JitenderTripathy, Manish Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gyan PrakashCSrivastava, Anil Kumar Jha, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mrs. K. SaradaDevi, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The competing interests of post-graduates having the degreeof M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. has given rise to a spate of litigation,and the present dispute flows from this. There are judicial precedentsdealing with this issue, but in a relevant factual context. Further, therehas been, to some extent, a pendulum swing in the stand of the concernedauthorities in analysing this controversy based upon inputs from experts.

D

E

The Factual Matrix:

2. The origination of the dispute is Advertisement No. 46, whichwas issued by respondent No. 2, the Uttar Pradesh Higher EducationService Selection Commission (for short ‘UPHESSC’) in March, 2014inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in variousFsubjects, including ‘Education’. The candidature of appellant No. 2 wasrejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the minimum criteria set outby the University Grants Commission (for short ‘UGC’), respondentNo. 4, although he had an M.Ed. Degree. This caused the said appellantto approach the High Court by filing Writ-A No. 61 of 2015.

G

3. The process in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement wasnearly completed while the writ petition was still pending, and a subsequentadvertisement, i.e., Advertisement No. 47 of 2016 was issued. This wasonce again for the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects, includinghundred posts in ‘Education’ in Government aided non-Government H

universities. The eligibility criteria for the same was specified in para 6of the advertisement, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“Minimum Educational Qualifications

6. Mandatory Educational Qualification

The prescribed minimum educational qualification for the post ofAssistant Professor mentioned in this advertisement is describedunder:

6.1 For the post of Assistant Professor for the subjects otherthan Singing and Fine Arts 6.1.1 Good academic record with 55 Percent score in relevantsubject at Post Graduate Level (Or with similar scoring inrelation to grades wherever grading system is prevalent).

6.1.2 Obtained passing marks in National Eligibility Test (NET)or U.P. State Level Eligibility Test (SET) or State LevelEligibility Test (SLET) as conducted by University GrantsCommission (U.G.C.).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

The twin criteria specified as the eligibility, thus, was (a) therequirement of a 55 per cent score in a relevant subject at the PostGraduate Level or with a similar scoring in relation to grades whereverthere is a grading system; and (b) passing marks in the National EligibilityTest (for short ‘NET’), or U.P. State Level Eligibility Test (for short‘SET’), or State Level Eligibility Test (for short ‘SLET’) as conductedby UGC.

4. The controversy, which arose from the aforesaid was on twoaspects: (a) would an M.Ed. Degree be treated as an equivalent degreeto M.A. (Education) for the purposes of appointment to the post ofAssistant Professor?, and (b) even if it was treated as an equivalent,could it be said that an M.Ed. is a post-graduation in the relevant subject?

5. In order to resolve the issues, respondent No. 2 constituted afour-member expert panel to render its opinion on the said subject. Thispanel consisted of four eminent persons: (i) Professor Bhoo Dev Singh,Professor and Dean of the Department of Education, Banaras HinduUniversity, Varanasi; (b) Professor P.C. Shukla, Department of Education,Banaras Hindu University; (c) Professor Amita Bhajpayee, Department

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof Education, Lucknow University; and (d) Professor P.K. Sahu,Department of Education, Allahabad University.

6. The opinion of the four experts was unanimous and was receivedwith their inputs. Thus, according to Professor Bhoo Dev Singh, the testconducted for the NET/JRF (Junior Research Fellowship) certificate isBthe same for both students with an M.A. (Education) and an M.Ed.Degree – with the test being conducted on the same day, at the sametime, with the same syllabus, same items and the same paper. Theconsequent certificate issued was only on the subject of ‘Education’ andthere was no separate mention of either of the two degrees. Theadvertisement issued in 2016 did not specify either of the aforesaid twoCqualifications, but only that there should be a post-graduation with requisitemarks in the relevant subject. Professor P.C. Shukla also opined that forthe post of Assistant Professor (Teaching), Faculty of Arts, the degreeof M.Ed., as well as, the qualification of M.A. (Education) should beaccepted, more so as the students holding an M.Ed. degree haveDcompleted a graduation degree of B.Ed. These two opinions wereconcurred with by the other two experts.

7. The aforesaid resulted in the issuance of a corrigendum of11.7.2016 by the UPHESSC/respondent No. 2 for the posts in question.It is this corrigendum, which was assailed before the High Court byErespondent No. 3, who was an applicant under both the advertisements,in Writ-A No. 16127 of 2017.

8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid, it would be appropriate totake note of two aspects. Firstly, as far back as 1.12.1958, the UGC/respondent No. 4 had issued a list of degrees for the purposes of SectionF22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referredto as the ‘UGC Act’), wherein it was specified that the Master’s Degreewould, inter alia, include an M.A. and M.Ed. The said Section specifiesthe right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by aUniversity established or incorporated in terms of sub-section (1) ofSection 22, while sub-section (3) stipulates what a degree would mean.GThe Section reads as under:

“22. Right to confer degrees. –

(1) The right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercisedonly by a University established or incorporated by or under aCentral Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institutionH

deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution speciallyempowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), no person or authorityshall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled toconfer or grant, any degree.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “degree’ means any suchdegree as may, with the previous approval of the CentralGovernment, be specified in this behalf by the Commission bynotification in the Official Gazette.”

9. Secondly, on 30.6.2010, the UGC/respondent No. 4 issued theUniversity Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointmentof Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges andother Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UGC Regulations’)(these Regulations were, inter alia, amended in 2016 and 2018).Regulation 4.4.1 dealt with the qualifications of Assistant Professor, interalia, in ‘Education’ and stipulated that a good academic record with atleast 55 per cent marks with a Master’s Degree in the relevant subjectfrom an Indian university or an equivalent degree from an accreditedforeign university, along with having cleared the NET or similar othertests. Regulation 4.4.7 contains the qualifications prescribed byrespondent No. 5/National Council for Teacher Education (for short‘NCTE’) for faculty positions. The relevant portion of the Regulationreads as under:

“4.4.7. QUALIFICATIONS PRESCRIBED FORFACULTY POSITIONS IN THE REGULATIONS OFNCTE.

A. QUALIFICATIONS FOR B. Ed. COURSE:

(ii) ASSISTANT PROFESSOR:

a. Foundation Courses

1. A Master’s Degree in Science/Humanities/Arts with 50% marks(or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading systemis followed);

2. M.Ed. with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in apoint scale wherever grading system is followed); and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

934SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A3. Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/any such affiliatingbody/State Government, from time to time for the positions ofprincipal and lecturers, shall be mandatory; OR

1. M.A. in Education with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade inBa point scale wherever grading system is followed);

2. B.Ed. with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in apoint scale wherever grading system is followed); and

3. Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/any such affiliatingbody/State Government, from time to time for the positions ofCprincipal and lecturers, shall be mandatory.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

10. The challenge laid by respondent No. 3 in the writ petitionwas primarily predicated on grounds that:D

(i) In a previous consideration in Dr. Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal& Ors.,[1] this Court had opined that an M.Ed. degree would not beat par with an M.A. (Education) degree;

(ii) A similar view as aforesaid was taken by the Himachal PradeshHigh Court in Praveen Kumar v. State of Himachal PradeshE& Ors.[2] which held that an M.Ed. degree is not a master’s degree,but is only a training qualification;

(iii) Advertisement No. 46 of 2014 only prescribed a minimumqualification of M.A. (Education) for the post of AssistantProfessor in Education, and an Expert Committee constitutedFpursuant to this advertisement also opined that M.A. (Education)and M.Ed. are two different courses and cannot be equated witheach other;

(iv) Advertisement No. 47 of 2016, as initially issued, did not makeM.Ed. candidates eligible for appointment as Assistant ProfessorsGin Education and it was only few days before the last date forsubmission of application forms that the corrigendum dated11.7.2016 was issued; and 1 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714H2 2014 SCC On Line HP 4307 2014 SCC On Line HP 4307

2 2014 SCC On Line HP 4307 2014 SCC On Line HP 4307

(v) NCTE/respondent No. 5 in their reply dated 4.10.2016 to therespondent No. 3 (not on record) had stated that M.A. (Education)is not a teacher’s education programme, while M.Ed. is so.

11. Respondent No. 2 sought to contest the writ petition and tooka stand in its counter affidavit that the requirement put forth inadvertisement No. 47 of 2016 prescribed that a candidate who possesseda post graduate degree in ‘Education’ could apply for the post of AssistantProfessor in Education. The background to the matter being referred tothe Expert Panel was stated to be a controversy which arose whensome candidates filed their applications with their NET/JRF certificateswherein it was demonstrated that although they had M.Ed. degrees,respondent No. 4 had declared that they are eligible for lecturer-ship inEducation. The corrigendum was issued in consonance with the opinionof the experts as well as the eligibility certificates issued by respondentNo. 4.

12. One aspect which is relevant is that in the writ proceedingsneither was the UGC nor the NCTE made a party, both of whom couldhave thrown light, being the competent parties on the subject. Moreover,not only that the persons who would be affected were not impleaded asparties, but also, not even anyone in a representative capacity from suchpersons was impleaded. Thus, there was complete absence of assistanceto the High Court insofar as both the competent authorities and theaffected persons were concerned.

13. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in theimpugned order dated 14.5.2018, opined after looking at the judgment inthe Dr. Prit Singh[3] case, as followed in the Praveen Kumar[4] case, theissue was no more res integra. That is, while M.A. (Education) is amaster’s degree in the subject concerned, M.Ed. is not so, as it is only atraining qualification. The conclusion reached was that an M.Ed. qualifiedperson could not be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor inEducation, and consequently the corrigendum dated 11.7.2016 wasquashed.

14. Respondent No. 2 in compliance with the aforesaid decision,in its meeting held on 5.9.2018, decided to change the qualificationsprescribed for the post of Assistant Professor in Education so as to onlytreat candidates with M.A. (Education) as eligible for the said post.

3 supra

4 supra

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A15. The candidates who had M.Ed. qualifications were naturallyaggrieved and twelve of such candidates filed a Special Leave Petitionbefore this Court, along with an application for leave to file the same,impleading the first three respondents who were parties before the HighCourt. Subsequently, other appellants who were similarly situated joinedin and were impleaded as appellant Nos. 13 to 213 vide order datedB31.8.2018. On a consideration of the controversy, UGC was impleadedas respondent No. 4 vide order dated 31.8.2018. Learned Senior Counselfor the appellants, Mr. P.S. Patwalia submitted that the interest of theappellants was only in participating in the 2016 selection process for thepost of Assistant Professor in Education, for which the last date ofCapplication was 14.7.2016 and for which the corrigendum had been issuedon 11.7.2016. Accordingly, this Court recorded that the pendency of theSpecial Leave Petitions would not stand in the way of the competentauthority proceeding with appointment of candidates of the selectionprocess commenced in the year 2014, since the appellants were notchallenging the said process. Thus, a quietus was sought to be put to theDselection process of 2014.

16. In view of the postponement of the examination, in terms oforder dated 12.10.2018, an interim order was passed provisionallypermitting the candidates with M.Ed. to participate in the selection process,but the result was to be produced in a sealed cover to the Court, as andEwhen the same was ready. It was clarified that this order was confinedonly to those persons who were parties/intervenors/impleaders and werebefore the Court on that date, as all of them were stated to have submittedthe applications before the cut-off date of 14.7.2016. The latter aspectwas clarified by an order dated 10.12.2018 that the cut-off date wouldFbe reckoned as 5.8.2016, since the same had been modified by thecompetent authority itself. Any other grievances regarding rejection ofan application on account of the same not being in conformity with theeligibility criteria were opined not to form a part of the proceedings beforethis Court and would have to be assailed in separate proceedings.G17.In view of the affidavit filed by the UGC, it was consideredappropriate to implead NCTE/respondent No. 5 in terms of the orderdated 15.1.2020.

18. The ground level development which took place was that 6793candidates were invited to appear for the written examination, whichtook place on 12.1.2019 for the post of Assistant Professor (Education)H

and the final answer key were published on 29.5.2019. The successfulcandidates were shortlisted for interviews, which were conducted from18.2.2020 to 27.2.2020. The results were accordingly sought to besubmitted in a sealed cover before this Court. The results were, however,not declared. The COVID-19 situation intervened and when the mattercame up ultimately on 31.7.2020, it was deemed appropriate to hear thematter finally in view of the educational requirements and, thus, leavewas granted and arguments proceeded. The occasion to peruse theresults, thus, did not arise.

19. It would be relevant to turn to the affidavit of the UGC at thisstage, which unequivocally stated that both M.A. (Education) and M.Ed.degrees are specified as master’s level degrees. Per Clause 8 of theUniversity Grants Commission (Minimum Standards of Instruction forthe Grant of the Master’s Degree through Formal Education) Regulations,2003, an M.A. (Education) degree may be awarded only after a studentsuccessfully completes a minimum of two years after the first degree.The affidavit also made a reference to Regulation 4.4.1 of the UGCRegulations, which required, inter alia, “Master’s Degree level in arelevant subject.” The advertisement and corrigendum issued byrespondent No. 2 was, thus, not found to be in derogation of the UGCRegulations, but it was opined that the UGC does not determine theequivalence of degrees. It was also opined that M.A. (Education) is aregular programme, while M.Ed. is a professional programme. Theconcerned authority to go into such equivalence was the NCTE/respondent No. 5 and this is what eventually caused the impleadment ofthe NCTE.

20. On notice being issued, the NCTE filed a counter-affidavit.The difference in approach and curriculum of the two degrees is set outin para 13:

“13. It is submitted that the M.Ed programme is a specificallydesigned as a practitioner’s degree, for students who wish to acquirethe knowledge, skills and experience necessary to work in aprofessional field. As a professional degree, the M.Ed. is intendedfor students who wish, upon graduation, to assume positions ofleadership in a practical setting or positions requiring more advancedstudy than that available at the bachelor’s level (e.g., as aninstructional technologist or as a district resource teacher). TheM.Ed. is not a research degree in the sense that the student is not A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arequired to carry out and defend an independent research project.However, the M.Ed. programme is nevertheless research-basedin that consideration of educationally relevant research constitutesa major focus of study and students are normally required to takea number of research-relevant courses (e.g., statistics courses)whereas MA Degree is mainly intended for students interested inBconducting a research study or who wish, upon graduation, toassume a research position or to proceed to doctoral level studies.Accordingly, the M.A. programme is designed specifically as aresearch degree, with students required to carry out and completean independent research project (Master’s Thesis). CompletionCof a master’s thesis is viewed as a pre-requisite for the pursuit ofdoctoral studies in most institutions.”

21. In view of what was stated, the conclusion was set out in para14 of the counter affidavit to the effect that the M.Ed. is a master’sdegree recognised by apex bodies like UGC and NCTE for appointmentDas an Assistant Professor in Education and persons with such a degreeare also eligible for NET/SLET/JRF, while M.A. (Education) is also amaster’s degree but is not a professional master’s degree and, therefore,a comparison of M.A. (Education) with M.Ed. is not tenable.

22. The counter affidavit of NCTE annexed the minutes of ameeting constituted to re-examine the issue of equivalence of NCTEErecognised M.Ed. programme of one-year duration with that of M.A.(Education), which met on 27th and 28th September, 2018. The membersof the Committee were as under:

i. Prof. Mohammed Miyan, Professor of Education and formerVice Chancellor, Maulana Azad National Urdu University,FHyderabad – Chair of the Committee.

ii. Dr. Renu Batra, Additional Secretary, UGC, New Delhi –Member.

iii. Prof. Ramesh Ghanta, President, Indian Association of TeacherEducation, Ex Professor of Maulana Azad National UrduGUniversity, Hyderabad – Member.

(iv) Dr. S.K. Chauhan, Under Secretary, NCTE – Convenor.

The background of the meeting was the judgment of the HighCourt, which has been impugned before us. It would be useful to H

reproduce the relevant portion of the minutes as they reflect directly onthe controversy and the same reads as under:

“1. It is historically a proven fact that B.Ed. and M.Ed.programmes are professional in their nature and primarily aim atpreparing the teachers for the school system and also teachereducators for teacher education institutions. These courses arerun almost for the last one century without any dispute with regardto their nature and professionalism.

2. It is evident from the details of the curriculum framework forprogrammes, M.Ed. and M.A. (Education), the subjects andexpected process of transaction is altogether different. The M.A.(Education) course is mostly designed only with a theoretical basewithout pedagogical orientation. Therefore, M.A. (Education)programme is primarily be considered as a disciplinary programmein education, whereas, B.Ed. and M.Ed. are professionalprogrammes. Further, to clarify that M.A. (Education) is of 2-year duration course after first degree. Whereas B.Ed. is oneyear after first degree and M.Ed., under reference is one yearprogramme. It means, to acquire M.Ed., degree one has to spend2 years after first degree because for admission to M.Ed., B.Ed.is mandatory. Therefore, from the point of view of duration andcurricular inputs, M.Ed. qualify itself as a master’s programme ineducation. M.Ed. is also recognized by UGC and NCTE, Apexbodies as masters’ degree in teacher education and the differenceis, M.Ed. is a professional degree whereas M.A. (Education is adegree in the Discipline of Education.

3. Candidates with M.Ed. qualifications are also eligible forappearing NET/JRF examinations and eligible for the post ofAssistant Professor in Education. In view of the above description,M.Ed. is a masters’ programme.

4. A look at the curriculum followed by the universities, whereM.A. (Education) programme is offered in comparison to M.Ed.programme offered by the same university, or by other universitiesin the country, it is observed that the focus in M.A. (Education) ison theoretical aspects of education leaving no place for pedagogyor school experience and community engagement. Whereas inthe case of M.Ed., the curriculum offered in continuation of B.Ed.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Acourse, the programme focus on the foundation courses atadvanced level. Further, the course work is designed in additionto the above, pedagogical orientation/school and communityengagement are well integrated as such, one can construe on thebasis of curricular inputs of these two courses. M.Ed. studentsare having an integral orientation to education, whereas M.A.B(Education) students are grounded in theory alongwith allied aspectsof education without professional orientation.

5. NCTE also makes M.Ed./M.A. (Education) with B.Ed. aseligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Education). Here, an M.A.has to have B.Ed. to be eligible because in B.Ed. one gets orientation inCpedagogy and school experience.

It is, therefore, concluded that M.Ed. is a masters’ degreerecognized by Apex Bodies like UGC and NCTE for appointment as anAssistant Professor in Education and they are also eligible for NET/SLET/JRF. On the other hand, M.A. (Education) is also a masters’ degreeDbut not a professional masters’ degree and therefore, comparison ofM.A. (Education) with M.Ed. is not tenable. Therefore, wherever, B.A.(Education) or M.A. (Education) courses are offered, to teach the coursesalong with M.A. (Education), M.Ed. candidates are also eligible.”

The Case of the Appellants:E

23. The contours of the submissions of the learned Senior Counselfor the appellants, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, rest in the following terms:

i.While emphasising on the question required to be determinedin this case of eligibility to be appointed to the post of AssistantFProfessor (Education) on the strength of their M.Ed. degree,it was contended that neither the appellants nor similarlysituated candidates nor statutory authorities, respondent Nos.4 & 5, were impleaded as parties before the High Court.

ii.Respondent No. 4, on being impleaded, had clearly opinedthat M.Ed. degree is indeed as master’s degree in education,Gbut that they did not determine the equivalence of degrees,power for which vests with respondent No. 5.

iii.Respondent No. 5, on the basis of a four-member Committeeconstituted to re-examine the issue of equivalence of NCTErecognised M.Ed. programme with that of M.A. (Education)Hfound that: (a) from the point of view of duration and curricular inputs, M.Ed. is a master’s programme in education asrecognised by respondent Nos. 4 & 5, (b) M.Ed. is aprofessional degree, whereas an M.A. (Education) is anacademic degree, i.e., it is a degree in the discipline ofeducation; and (c) Candidates with an M.Ed. degree areeligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor(Education) and can teach B.A. (Education) and M.A.(Education) courses.

iv.The candidates possessing M.Ed. qualification are eligiblefor appointment and whether M.A. (Education) and M.Ed.are equivalent is irrelevant for this case.

v.The UGC/respondent No. 4 had issued a public notice statingthat equivalence of degrees is decided by the employingorganisation and in the present case, respondent No. 2 beingthe employing organisation, sought the opinion of the expertpanel, and thereafter took a decision, which was impugnedin the writ petition, permitting M.Ed. degree as an eligiblequalification for appointment. Thus, the correctness of sucha decision, based on the view of experts, ought not to bequestioned or gone into in judicial review.

A

B

C

D

Before AmendmentAfter AmendmentE(a) A consistently good academic record with A good academic record with at least first or first or high second class (55% marks/grade high second class (grade B in the seven point B in the seven point scale) Master’s Degree scale) at Master’s Degree in Education and in any subject and also a degree in education not necessarily also at Master’s Degree in the of an Indian University or equivalent degree relevant subject (relaxable work of very high of foreign University (relaxable if a candidate standard or University approved teacher Fhas to his credit research work of very high before January 27, 1976). standard) and(b) An M. Phil degree or a recognised degree (b) No change. beyond the Master’s level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work: Provided that if a candidate possessing the qualifications as at G(b) is not available or not considered suitable, the college on the recommendation of the Selection Committee may appoint a person possessing the qualification as at (a).

5 supra

Avi.Several institutions across different States are consideringpersons with an M.Ed. degree for such appointments.

vii.The judgment in the Dr. Prit Singh[5] case is clearlydistinguishable on the facts as in that case a separate degreein education was required. The controversy related toBqualifications prescribed for the post of Principal of arecognised college of education. The qualifications were asunder:

It may be noted that initially, the appointment of the appellanttherein was negated as he did not have the requisiteCqualifications, but subsequently the norms were amended andhis appointment was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor.However, it was found that the relevant norms as applicableat the time of selection provided for a dual requirement, i.e.,a Master’s Degree in any subject and “also a degree ineducation of an Indian University or equivalent degree ofDforeign University”. The academic record of the appellanttherein, i.e., the selected person was also not one to talkhome about. It is these factors which weighed with the HighCourt and it is this fundamental issue of dual qualificationwhich resulted in the opinion of this Court while quashingEthe appointment.

viii.The distinguishing feature of Dr. Prit Singh[6] case was noticedby this Court in Dr. Ram Sevak Singh v. Dr. U.P. Singh &Ors.[7] where there was no such requirement of a dualqualification.

Fix.The candidates with either an M.Ed. or an M.A. (Education)qualification had to take a common test for the purposes ofobtaining the NET certificate and the successful candidatesare not distinguished on the basis of their degree. Since thepassing of NET or equivalent is mandatory, all candidatesGwho have passed NET are eligible for appointment.

x.The judicial review has no place to determine the ambit andequivalence of qualification and, thus, even assuming that an 6 supra 7 (1999) 2 SCC 189H8 (2019) 2 SCC 404

M.Ed. degree is not equivalent to M.A. (Education) degree,that is something to be left to the experts and the employingauthority. In this behalf, the observations in Zahoor AhmadRather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors.[8] wererelied upon by the appellants to the following effect:

“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation whichhas been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. (2010) 15 SCC 596 in thesubsequent decision in Anita (2015) 2 SCC 170. The decision in JyotiK.K. (supra) turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such arule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higherqualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeitlower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matterof recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribethe qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role orfunction of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribedqualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matterwhich can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review.Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded asequivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, todetermine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned on a specificstatutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification couldpresuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of sucha rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimateoutcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the HighCourt was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judgeand in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet theprescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the DivisionBench.

27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, asemployer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including thenature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge ofduties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the courseof studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The Stateis entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services.Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain ofadministrative decision-making. The state as a public employer may welltake into account social perspectives that require the creation of jobopportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aof policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision inJyoti K.K. (supra) must be understood in the context of a specificstatutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification whichpresupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered tobe sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that thedecision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned.”B

The Case of Contesting Respondent No.3:

24. Learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, put forth that:

i. There have been judicial pronouncements of various High Courtsto the effect that M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. are differentCcourses. An earlier observation of the Allahabad High Court inWrit-A No.65853/2015 decided on 14.3.2016 was referred towhere Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act,1973 was discussed. This required each faculty to comprise suchsubjects of teaching as may be prescribed. The Section emphasisedDhow each faculty is a different cadre in itself and there cannot bean interchange of any faculty member from one faculty to another.Also, teaching staff of ‘Education’ under the Faculty of Arts arenot entitled to impart education to students perusing B.Ed. andM.Ed., nor can they set papers or moderate courses for the two.

ii. Respondent No. 5 took a stand before the Gujarat High Courtin Special Civil Application No. 2425/2016 that M.A. (Education)and M.Ed. are two different programmes and contrary to theadvice of respondent No. 4 herein, equivalence of degrees is notwithin its competence.

E

iii. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Governmentof India through its Under Secretary (NCTE) in an RTI replystated that M.A. (Education) is a post graduate degree to teachat the college level whereas M.Ed. is only a professional degreefor teaching in schools.

F

iv. The advertisement No. 47 of 2016 was in respect of 100 seatsin Education (Arts Faculty) and in these vacancies, there were noseats for B.Ed. (Teacher Training Faculty). Further, in terms ofSection 22 of the UGC Act, the post graduate degree for B.A. isM.A. and for B.Ed. is M.Ed., since both degrees are distinct, theappellants are not qualified for the post in question.

G

H

v. Respondent No. 4 vide a notification issued in 2014 specifiedthat B.A. and M.A. come under Arts/Humanities/Social Sciencecategories, whereas B.Ed. and M.Ed. come under teacher trainingcategories.

vi. Respondent No. 4 in its affidavit stated that no students shallbe eligible for award of master’s degree unless they havecompleted two years after their first degree. M.A. is a two yearsmaster’s programme whereas M.Ed. is a one-year teacher trainingprogramme (as it then was). Therefore, advertisement No. 47 of2016 was for two years master’s degree only.

vii. M.A. (Education) is an academic degree whereas M.Ed. isonly a professional degree. The Degrees are different and belongto two different streams of discipline in education and their apexbodies are also different. Para 3.0 of Chapter 39 of the UGCRecommended Syllabus of Education was relied upon in this behalf,which reads as under:

“Education as an Academic Discipline” and education aspreparation of teachers and other professionals for service in thefield are two distinct streams of course in education. The M.A.(Education) is a Master of Arts in Education and M.Ed. is Masterof Education and both are not equivalent. M.A. (Education) ispurely Academic whereas M.Ed. is professional and their apexbodies are different. These two courses are different and beingstreams of discipline of education, they cannot be taken at par.”

The distinction has also been recognised in Dr. M.S. Mudhol &Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar & Ors.,[9] The relevant portion of which reads asunder:

“4. The contention of the respondents that M.Ed. (sic M.A.) 2ndDivision was equivalent to M.A. (sic M.Ed.) 2nd Division isobviously fallacious. The former is the academic qualification whilethe latter a professional qualification. Secondly, the course of theformer is whole-time spread over no less that two years while thecourse of the latter is part-time and is spread over one year. Inany case, the statutory rule with regard to the essential qualificationsis very clear inasmuch as it requires both academic Masters’

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

degree and the teaching degree, the latter being not the substitutefor the former. What is further, while laying down the qualificationswith regard to the academic degree viz. the Masters’ degree, therule insists upon 2nd Division for such degree. It does not insistupon a 2nd Division degree in teaching. A pass degree is sufficientin its eyes. It would, therefore, amount to distorting the requisitequalifications under the rules, to attempt to substitute the teachingqualification for the academic qualification and exchanging thedivisions of the two…….”

A

B

A

B

viii. The expert opinion dated 15.5.2014 was obtained fromProfessors of Rajarshi Tandon Open University, Allahabad andCAllahabad University in pursuance of advertisement No. 46 of2014. Candidates with M.Ed. degree were found not entitled toparticipate in the selection process. The qualifications in the 2014and the 2016 advertisements are the same. The expert panelconstituted for purposes of advertisement No. 47 of 2016, whichDis in question, gave their opinion without basing it on any data andwithout comparing the syllabus of both the courses.

D

View which we Seek to Adopt:

25. We have analysed the records and considered the submissionsof the learned counsels for the parties.

E

26. We must, at the inception, express our reservation about themanner in which the writ petition was filed and a decision was taken inthe impugned order of the High Court without even calling upon therelevant authorities, i.e., the UGC and the NCTE to put forth their stand.The first authority is undisputedly the one to determine and specify thenomenclature of degrees, while the second is the authority of teachereducation. Whatever has been the earlier position, as is sought to berelied upon, of the Gujarat High Court, the same is no more in doubt. Adecision based in the absence of concerned authorities is likely to andhas caused confusion.

F

G

27. We are also of the view that affected candidates, or at leastsome of them in a representative capacity, were bound to be heard andno decision could have been taken behind the back of these candidates.

28. We are, thus, of the view that it is only before this Court thatthe complete contours of the controversy have emerged and the standof all the relevant parties have been sought to be examined.

29. The stand put forth before us by the UGC/respondent No. 4 isunequivocal in its terms that M.Ed. degree is indeed a master’s degreein Education in terms of the notification issued by it under the UGC Actin terms of Section 22. In that sense, the matter is put to rest in terms ofrecognition of M.Ed. as a post-graduate degree by the competent authority.

30. The question of equivalence, as submitted by respondent No.4/UGC was to be left to the NCTE. It is in view thereof that NCTE wasadded as a party (respondent No. 5) and has, once again, put forth itsposition quite unequivocally. The NCTE has drawn a distinction betweenthe two degrees to the extent that while M.A. (Education) is a degree inthe discipline of Education, the M.Ed. degree is a practitioner’s degree.Reference has also been made to a Committee constituted in pursuanceof the impugned judgment, which is an expert committee. In view of therecognition of the M.Ed. programme of one-year duration, in order toacquire an M.Ed. degree, one has to spend two years after the firstdegree because for an M.Ed. degree, a B.Ed. degree is mandatory. It isin these circumstances a conclusion was reached that, from the point ofview of duration and curricular inputs, M.Ed. qualifies itself as a master’sprogramme in Education and is even recognised by the UGC and NCTEas such. In a sense this puts to rest one of the controversies raised byrespondent No. 3, i.e., initially M.Ed. was a one-year programme, andonly subsequently converted into a two-years programme in 2015, asthis very issue has been examined by an expert committee of the NCTE,and the NCTE concluded in favour of the appellants. There is also acategorical statement in the last paragraph of the counter affidavit ofthe NCTE to the effect that the M.Ed. is a master’s degree recognisedby apex bodies like the UGC and NCTE for appointment as AssistantProfessor in Education and they are also eligible for the NET/SLET/JRF.

31. We may also notice another important aspect, i.e., the employerultimately being the best judge of who should be appointed. The choicewas of respondent No. 2. who sought the assistance of an expertcommittee in view of the representation of some of the appellants. Theeminence of the expert committee is apparent from its composition. Thatcommittee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand taken by the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aappellants, and respondent No. 2 as employer decided to concur withthe same and accepted the committee’s opinion. It is really not for theappellants or the contesting respondent to contend how and in whatmanner a degree should be obtained, which would make them eligiblefor appointment by respondent No. 2.

B32. We hasten to add that it is not our view that an employer likerespondent No. 2 can do as they please - they are guided and bound bythe terms of the UGC Act and the regulations thereunder, but then here,there is no doubt about the M.Ed. degree being a post graduate degree,in view of not only what the UGC stated before us, but havingpromulgated the relevant Regulations as far back as 2010 as amendedCfrom time to time. The issue of equivalence has been rightly consideredby the NCTE and while recognising some distinct aspects of two thedegrees, it has clearly stated that for the job of Assistant Professors(Education), both are eligible.

33. We may notice that it is not as if a person with an M.Ed.Ddegree is eligible for all the posts which were advertised for Science,Arts and others. Their eligibility has been found only for the post ofAssistant Professor (Education), which is directly relatable to the subjectto be taught. We do not think the fact that both M.Ed. and M.A. (Education)degree-holders have to take a common test for the purposes of NET isconclusive, but it is one of the factors to be considered, and once theEexpert body being the NCTE, inter alia, has taken that aspect intoconsideration apart from other factors to opine equivalence for the purposeof appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Education, it wouldnot be appropriate to take a contra view.

34. We say so in view of the fact that matters of education mustFbe left to educationists, of course subject to being governed by the relevantstatutes and regulations. It is not the function of this Court to sit as anexpert body over the decision of the experts, especially when the expertsare all eminent people as apparent from the names as set out. Thisaspect has received judicial imprimatur even earlier and it is not that weare saying something new. We may refer to the pronouncement in ZahoorGAhmad Rather & Ors.[10] in this behalf which has dealt with the dualaspects: (a) it is for the employer to consider what functionality ofqualification and content of course of studies would lead to the acquisitionof an eligible qualification; and (b) such matters must be left toeducationists.

35. We have also gone through the judgment in the Dr. Prit Singh[11]case. The impugned order of the High Court has almost been predicatedentirely on this judgment, as if there was no issue alive to be dealt with,even though the distinction was recognised in a subsequent judgment ofthe Dr. Ram Sevak Singh[12] case. It is trite to say that often, a propositionof law as laid down in a case is as good as the facts of the case. The Dr.Prit Singh[13] case was concerned with the dual requirements in therelevant advertisement, i.e., a post graduate degree in any subject and adegree in Education. There is no such dual qualification laid here. Notonly that, the recruitment was for the post of a Principal and that too thecase was concerned with a person with qualifications of not mucheminence in terms of the marks obtained. There was an endeavour tohelp out the candidate by even amending the norms and, thus, the Courtrightly came to the conclusion that the same was not appropriate. Weare dealing with different norms for the concerned advertisement, arequirement of having a degree in the relevant subject, in this case being‘Education’, and for eligible persons to have the requisite marks. We,thus, fail to understand how the judgment in the Dr. Prit Singh[14] casecan be considered a binding precedent in the factual contours of thepresent case, more so in view of the observations made in the Dr. RamSevak Singh[15] case, clearly setting out as to what was the actual basisof the opinion in the Dr. Prit Singh[16] case.

36. We may note that, sometimes, without looking into the realratio decidendi, a judgment is followed as a precedent. This is whatappears to have happened in the impugned order. There are even someother judgments of the High Courts, which in turn were then sought tobe relied upon to canvas a proposition that there is a widespreadacceptance of M.Ed. not being equivalent to M.A. (Education). Thatthey are two different degrees is obvious; this is even recognised by theNCTE while emphasising the subtle distinction between the two degreesas one being a master’s degree but not a professional degree, while theother being a professional degree. If the two degrees are identical, thereis no question of equivalence. The issue of equivalence only arises whenthere are two different degrees and what is to be decided whether forcertain purposes they can be treated as equivalent. This is exactly what 11 supra12 supra 13 supra 14 supra 15 supra 16 supra A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Ahas happened as a result of the respective expert committees set up byrespondent Nos. 2 & 5. The employer, i.e., respondent No. 2, hadaccepted the recommendation of the expert committee. The UGC hasalso taken a stand that insofar as the two degrees are concerned, bothare post graduate degrees, and the equivalence authority being respondentNo.5 has also opined on the basis of an expert committee, that the twoBcan be treated as equivalent for the post of Assistant Professor inEducation. Thus, it is neither for the contesting party, i.e., respondentNo.3, nor for this Court to sit as a court of appeal over the decision ofthe experts. We may also note that respondent No.3 has in fact beenselected in the 2014 selection process as per the final list released onC22.5.2018.

37. We are, thus, of the view that the impugned judgment is notsustainable and has to be set aside, and the challenge to the corrigendumdated 11.7.2016 is repelled. The result having already been computedand awaiting declaration should now be declared forthwith so that personsDlooking for employment, as per the requisite eligibility criteria, can beemployed, and so that the students have the benefit of education fromthe persons so employed.

38. The appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to beartheir own costs.

E

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

F

G

H