# ANAND YADAV & ORS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 13 S.C.R. 925
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-10-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose, Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/anand-yadav-ors-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-34380
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions - Advertisement issued by
respondent no.2-Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection
Commission inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors
in various subjects, including Education - Candidature of appellant
no.2 having M.Ed. Degree was rejected on the ground that he did
not fulfill the minimum criteria set out by UGC - Subsequent
advertisement issued for the same post did not specify either M.A.
(Education) or M.Ed. but specified inter alia a post-graduation with
requisite marks in relevant subject as eligibility - Issue arose if an
M.Ed. Degree is equivalent to M.A. (Education) and even if it is
could M.Ed. be said to be a post-graduation in the relevant subject
- Expert panel constituted by respondent no.2 inter alia opined that
for the post of Assistant Professor, degree of M.Ed. as well as M.A.
(Education) should be accepted - Accordingly, corrigendum was
issued by respondent no.2 for the posts in question - Challenged
by respondent no.3, an applicant under both the advertisements -
Division Bench quashed the said corrigendum inter alia holding that
M.Ed. qualified person could not be appointed to the post of
Assistant Professor (Education) - Respondent no.2 decided to
change the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant
Professor(Education) treating candidates with M.A. (Education) as
eligible for the said post - Candidates with M.Ed. Degree aggrieved
- Interim order passed provisionally permitting said candidates to
participate in selection process - Held: Respondent no.2-employer
accepted recommendation of the expert committee - UGC has also
taken a stand that insofar as the two degrees are concerned, both
are post graduate degrees - Equivalence authority, NCTE has also
opined on the basis of an expert committee, that the two can be
treated 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
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 925
925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
a court of appeal over the decision of the experts - Impugned
judgment set aside, challenge to the corrigendum dtd. 11.7.16
repelled.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 This Court, at the inception, expresses its
reservation about the manner in which the writ petition was filed
and a decision was taken in the impugned order of the High Court
without even calling upon the relevant authorities, i.e., the UGC
and the NCTE to put forth their stand. The first authority is
undisputedly the one to determine and specify the nomenclature
of degrees, while the second is the authority of teacher education.
A decision based in the absence of concerned authorities is likely
to and has caused confusion. Affected candidates, or at least some
of them in a representative capacity, were bound to be heard and
no decision could have been taken behind the back of these
candidates. It is only before this Court that the complete contours
of the controversy have emerged and the stand of all the relevant
parties have been sought to be examined. [Paras 26-28]
[946-D-G]
1.2 The stand put forth by the UGC/respondent No. 4 is
unequivocal in its terms that M.Ed. degree is indeed a master's
degree in Education in terms of the notification issued by it under
the UGC Act in terms of Section 22. In that sense, the matter is
put to rest in terms of recognition of M.Ed. as a post-graduate
degree by the competent authority. 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 was added as a party
(respondent No. 5) and has, once again, put forth its position
quite unequivocally. The NCTE has drawn a distinction between
the two degrees to the extent that while M.A. (Education) is a
degree in the discipline of Education, the M.Ed. degree is a
practitioner's degree. Reference has also been made to a
Committee constituted in pursuance of the impugned judgment,
which

## Text

_Characters 0–39,793 of 58,706. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39793 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
ANAND YADAV & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020)
OCTOBER 12, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions - Advertisement issued by
respondent no.2-Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection
Commission inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors
in various subjects, including Education - Candidature of appellant
no.2 having M.Ed. Degree was rejected on the ground that he did
not fulfill the minimum criteria set out by UGC - Subsequent
advertisement issued for the same post did not specify either M.A.
(Education) or M.Ed. but specified inter alia a post-graduation with
requisite marks in relevant subject as eligibility - Issue arose if an
M.Ed. Degree is equivalent to M.A. (Education) and even if it is
could M.Ed. be said to be a post-graduation in the relevant subject
- Expert panel constituted by respondent no.2 inter alia opined that
for the post of Assistant Professor, degree of M.Ed. as well as M.A.
(Education) should be accepted - Accordingly, corrigendum was
issued by respondent no.2 for the posts in question - Challenged
by respondent no.3, an applicant under both the advertisements -
Division Bench quashed the said corrigendum inter alia holding that
M.Ed. qualified person could not be appointed to the post of
Assistant Professor (Education) - Respondent no.2 decided to
change the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant
Professor(Education) treating candidates with M.A. (Education) as
eligible for the said post - Candidates with M.Ed. Degree aggrieved
- Interim order passed provisionally permitting said candidates to
participate in selection process - Held: Respondent no.2-employer
accepted recommendation of the expert committee - UGC has also
taken a stand that insofar as the two degrees are concerned, both
are post graduate degrees - Equivalence authority, NCTE has also
opined on the basis of an expert committee, that the two can be
treated 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
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 925
925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
a court of appeal over the decision of the experts - Impugned
judgment set aside, challenge to the corrigendum dtd. 11.7.16
repelled.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 This Court, at the inception, expresses its
reservation about the manner in which the writ petition was filed
and a decision was taken in the impugned order of the High Court
without even calling upon the relevant authorities, i.e., the UGC
and the NCTE to put forth their stand. The first authority is
undisputedly the one to determine and specify the nomenclature
of degrees, while the second is the authority of teacher education.
A decision based in the absence of concerned authorities is likely
to and has caused confusion. Affected candidates, or at least some
of them in a representative capacity, were bound to be heard and
no decision could have been taken behind the back of these
candidates. It is only before this Court that the complete contours
of the controversy have emerged and the stand of all the relevant
parties have been sought to be examined. [Paras 26-28]
[946-D-G]
1.2 The stand put forth by the UGC/respondent No. 4 is
unequivocal in its terms that M.Ed. degree is indeed a master's
degree in Education in terms of the notification issued by it under
the UGC Act in terms of Section 22. In that sense, the matter is
put to rest in terms of recognition of M.Ed. as a post-graduate
degree by the competent authority. 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 was added as a party
(respondent No. 5) and has, once again, put forth its position
quite unequivocally. The NCTE has drawn a distinction between
the two degrees to the extent that while M.A. (Education) is a
degree in the discipline of Education, the M.Ed. degree is a
practitioner's degree. Reference has also been made to a
Committee constituted in pursuance of the impugned judgment,
which is an expert committee. In view of the recognition of the
M.Ed. programme of one-year duration, in order to acquire an
M.Ed. degree, one has to spend two years after the first degree
because for an M.Ed. degree, a B.Ed. degree is mandatory. It is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
in these circumstances a conclusion was reached that, from the
point of view of duration and curricular inputs, M.Ed. qualifies
itself as a master's programme in Education and is even
recognised by the UGC and NCTE as such. In a sense this puts
to rest one of the controversies raised by respondent No. 3, i.e.,
initially M.Ed. was a one-year programme, and only subsequently
converted into a two-years programme in 2015, as this very issue
has been examined by an expert committee of the NCTE, and
the NCTE concluded in favour of the appellants. There is also a
categorical statement in the last paragraph of the counter affidavit
of the NCTE to the effect that the M.Ed. is a master's degree
recognised by apex bodies like the UGC and NCTE for
appointment as Assistant Professor in Education and they are
also eligible for the NET/SLET/JRF. Another important aspect
may also be noticed, i.e., the employer ultimately being the best
judge of who should be appointed. The choice was of respondent
No. 2. who sought the assistance of an expert committee in view
of the representation of some of the appellants. The eminence of
the expert committee is apparent from its composition. That
committee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand taken
by the appellants, and respondent No. 2 as employer decided to
concur with the same and accepted the committee's opinion. It is
really not for the appellants or the contesting respondent to
contend how and in what manner a degree should be obtained,
which would make them eligible for appointment by respondent
No. 2. [Paras 29-31][946-G-H; 947-A-H]
1.3 It is not this Court's view that an employer like
respondent No. 2 can do as they please - they are guided and
bound by the 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 this Court, but having promulgated the
relevant Regulations as far back as 2010 as amended from time
to time. The issue of equivalence has been rightly considered by
the NCTE and while recognising some distinct aspects of two
the degrees, it has clearly stated that for the job of Assistant
Professors (Education), both are eligible. It is not as if a person
ANAND YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
with an M.Ed. degree is eligible for all the posts which were
advertised for Science, Arts and others. Their eligibility has been
found only for the post of Assistant Professor (Education), which
is directly relatable to the subject to be taught. The fact that both
M.Ed. and M.A. (Education) degree-holders have to take a
common test for the purposes of NET is not conclusive, but it is
one of the factors to be considered, and once the expert body
being the NCTE, inter alia, has taken that aspect into
consideration apart from other factors to opine equivalence for
the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in
Education, it would not be appropriate to take a contra view.
Matters of education must be left to educationists, of course
subject to being governed by the relevant statutes and
regulations. It is not the function of this Court to sit as an expert
body over the decision of the experts, especially when the experts
are all eminent people as apparent from the names as set out.
[Paras 32-34][948-A-F]
Zahoor 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 been
predicated entirely on the judgment in Dr. Prit Singh case, as if
there was no issue alive to be dealt with, even though the
distinction was recognised in a subsequent judgment of the Dr.
Ram Sevak Singh case. Sometimes, without looking into the real
ratio decidendi, a judgment is followed as a precedent. This is
what appears to have happened in the impugned order. There
are even some other judgments of the High Courts, which in
turn were then sought to be relied upon to canvas a proposition
that there is a widespread acceptance of M.Ed. not being
equivalent to M.A. (Education). That they are two different
degrees is obvious; this is even recognised by the NCTE while
emphasising the subtle distinction between the two degrees as
one being a master's degree but not a professional degree, while
the other being a professional degree. If the two degrees are
identical, there is no question of equivalence. The issue of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
equivalence only arises when there are two different degrees
and what is to be decided whether for certain purposes they can
be treated as equivalent. This is exactly what has happened as a
result of the respective expert committees set up by respondent
Nos. 2 & 5. The employer, i.e., respondent No. 2, had accepted
the recommendation of the expert committee. The UGC has also
taken a stand that insofar as the two degrees are concerned, both
are post graduate degrees, and the equivalence authority being
respondent No.5 has also opined on the basis of an expert
committee, that the two can be treated as equivalent for the post
of Assistant Professor in Education. Thus, it is neither for the
contesting party, i.e., respondent No.3, nor for this Court to sit
as a court of appeal over the decision of the experts.
Respondent No.3 has in fact been selected in the 2014
selection process as per the final list released on 22.5.2018. The
impugned 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 declaration
should 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 SCC
591:[1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 115- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 337
distinguished Para 10 (i)
(1999) 2 SCC 189
referred to
Para 23 (viii)
[2018] 14 SCR 1082
relied on
Para 23 (x)
ANAND YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
[1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 115
referred to
Para 24 (vii)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2850
of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No.16127 of 2017.
P.S.Patwalia, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr.Advs., Amit Pawan, Manoj
K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Ramesh Tripathi, Anuj Chaturvedi, Bhakti
Vardhan Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Antariksh Singh, Rajeev
Maheshwaranand Roy, P.Srinivasan, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Jitender
Tripathy, Manish Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gyan Prakash
Srivastava, Anil Kumar Jha, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mrs. K. Sarada
Devi, 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 degree
of M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. has given rise to a spate of litigation,
and the present dispute flows from this. There are judicial precedents
dealing with this issue, but in a relevant factual context. Further, there
has been, to some extent, a pendulum swing in the stand of the concerned
authorities in analysing this controversy based upon inputs from experts.
The Factual Matrix:
2. The origination of the dispute is Advertisement No. 46, which
was issued by respondent No. 2, the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education
Service Selection Commission (for short 'UPHESSC') in March, 2014
inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in various
subjects, including 'Education'. The candidature of appellant No. 2 was
rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the minimum criteria set out
by the University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC'), respondent
No. 4, although he had an M.Ed. Degree. This caused the said appellant
to approach the High Court by filing Writ-A No. 61 of 2015.
3. The process in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement was
nearly completed while the writ petition was still pending, and a subsequent
advertisement, i.e., Advertisement No. 47 of 2016 was issued. This was
once again for the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects, including
hundred posts in 'Education' in Government aided non-Government
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
universities. The eligibility criteria for the same was specified in para 6
of 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 of
Assistant Professor mentioned in this advertisement is described
under:
6.1 For the post of Assistant Professor for the subjects other
than Singing and Fine Arts
6.1.1 Good academic record with 55 Percent score in relevant
subject at Post Graduate Level (Or with similar scoring in
relation 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 Level
Eligibility Test (SLET) as conducted by University Grants
Commission (U.G.C.).
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx"
The twin criteria specified as the eligibility, thus, was (a) the
requirement of a 55 per cent score in a relevant subject at the Post
Graduate Level or with a similar scoring in relation to grades wherever
there is a grading system; and (b) passing marks in the National Eligibility
Test (for short 'NET'), or U.P. State Level Eligibility Test (for short
'SET'), or State Level Eligibility Test (for short 'SLET') as conducted
by UGC.
4. The controversy, which arose from the aforesaid was on two
aspects: (a) would an M.Ed. Degree be treated as an equivalent degree
to M.A. (Education) for the purposes of appointment to the post of
Assistant 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 a
four-member expert panel to render its opinion on the said subject. This
panel consisted of four eminent persons: (i) Professor Bhoo Dev Singh,
Professor and Dean of the Department of Education, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi; (b) Professor P.C. Shukla, Department of Education,
Banaras Hindu University; (c) Professor Amita Bhajpayee, Department
ANAND YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
of 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 received
with their inputs. Thus, according to Professor Bhoo Dev Singh, the test
conducted for the NET/JRF (Junior Research Fellowship) certificate is
the 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 same
time, with the same syllabus, same items and the same paper. The
consequent certificate issued was only on the subject of 'Education' and
there was no separate mention of either of the two degrees. The
advertisement issued in 2016 did not specify either of the aforesaid two
qualifications, but only that there should be a post-graduation with requisite
marks in the relevant subject. Professor P.C. Shukla also opined that for
the post of Assistant Professor (Teaching), Faculty of Arts, the degree
of M.Ed., as well as, the qualification of M.A. (Education) should be
accepted, more so as the students holding an M.Ed. degree have
completed a graduation degree of B.Ed. These two opinions were
concurred with by the other two experts.
7. The aforesaid resulted in the issuance of a corrigendum of
11.7.2016 by the UPHESSC/respondent No. 2 for the posts in question.
It is this corrigendum, which was assailed before the High Court by
respondent 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 to
take 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 Section
22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'UGC Act'), wherein it was specified that the Master's Degree
would, inter alia, include an M.A. and M.Ed. The said Section specifies
the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a
University established or incorporated in terms of sub-section (1) of
Section 22, while sub-section (3) stipulates what a degree would mean.
The Section reads as under:
"22. Right to confer degrees. -
(1) The right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised
only by a University established or incorporated by or under a
Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially
empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority
shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to
confer or grant, any degree.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "degree' means any such
degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central
Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by
notification in the Official Gazette."
9. Secondly, on 30.6.2010, the UGC/respondent No. 4 issued the
University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment
of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and
other 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, inter
alia, in 'Education' and stipulated that a good academic record with at
least 55 per cent marks with a Master's Degree in the relevant subject
from an Indian university or an equivalent degree from an accredited
foreign university, along with having cleared the NET or similar other
tests. Regulation 4.4.7 contains the qualifications prescribed by
respondent No. 5/National Council for Teacher Education (for short
'NCTE') for faculty positions. The relevant portion of the Regulation
reads as under:
"4.4.7. QUALIFICATIONS PRESCRIBED FOR
FACULTY POSITIONS IN THE REGULATIONS OF
NCTE.
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 system
is followed);
2. M.Ed. with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a
point scale wherever grading system is followed); and
ANAND YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
3. Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/any such affiliating
body/State Government, from time to time for the positions of
principal and lecturers, shall be mandatory;
OR
1. M.A. in Education with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in
a point scale wherever grading system is followed);
2. B.Ed. with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a
point scale wherever grading system is followed); and
3. Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/any such affiliating
body/State Government, from time to time for the positions of
principal and lecturers, shall be mandatory.
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx"
10. The challenge laid by respondent No. 3 in the writ petition
was primarily predicated on grounds that:
(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 be
at par with an M.A. (Education) degree;
(ii) A similar view as aforesaid was taken by the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in Praveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
& 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 minimum
qualification of M.A. (Education) for the post of Assistant
Professor in Education, and an Expert Committee constituted
pursuant to this advertisement also opined that M.A. (Education)
and M.Ed. are two different courses and cannot be equated with
each other;
(iv) Advertisement No. 47 of 2016, as initially issued, did not make
M.Ed. candidates eligible for appointment as Assistant Professors
in Education and it was only few days before the last date for
submission of application forms that the corrigendum dated
11.7.2016 was issued; and
1 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714
2 2014 SCC On Line HP 4307
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
935
(v) NCTE/respondent No. 5 in their reply dated 4.10.2016 to the
respondent 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 took
a stand in its counter affidavit that the requirement put forth in
advertisement No. 47 of 2016 prescribed that a candidate who possessed
a post graduate degree in 'Education' could apply for the post of Assistant
Professor in Education. The background to the matter being referred to
the Expert Panel was stated to be a controversy which arose when
some candidates filed their applications with their NET/JRF certificates
wherein it was demonstrated that although they had M.Ed. degrees,
respondent No. 4 had declared that they are eligible for lecturer-ship in
Education. The corrigendum was issued in consonance with the opinion
of the experts as well as the eligibility certificates issued by respondent
No. 4.
12. One aspect which is relevant is that in the writ proceedings
neither was the UGC nor the NCTE made a party, both of whom could
have thrown light, being the competent parties on the subject. Moreover,
not only that the persons who would be affected were not impleaded as
parties, but also, not even anyone in a representative capacity from such
persons was impleaded. Thus, there was complete absence of assistance
to the High Court insofar as both the competent authorities and the
affected persons were concerned.
13. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the
impugned order dated 14.5.2018, opined after looking at the judgment in
the Dr. Prit Singh3 case, as followed in the Praveen Kumar4 case, the
issue was no more res integra. That is, while M.A. (Education) is a
master's degree in the subject concerned, M.Ed. is not so, as it is only a
training qualification. The conclusion reached was that an M.Ed. qualified
person could not be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in
Education, and consequently the corrigendum dated 11.7.2016 was
quashed.
14. Respondent No. 2 in compliance with the aforesaid decision,
in its meeting held on 5.9.2018, decided to change the qualifications
prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor in Education so as to only
treat candidates with M.A. (Education) as eligible for the said post.
3 supra
4 supra
ANAND YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
15. The candidates who had M.Ed. qualifications were naturally
aggrieved and twelve of such candidates filed a Special Leave Petition
before this Court, along with an application for leave to file the same,
impleading the first three respondents who were parties before the High
Court. Subsequently, other appellants who were similarly situated joined
in and were impleaded as appellant Nos. 13 to 213 vide order dated
31.8.2018. On a consideration of the controversy, UGC was impleaded
as respondent No. 4 vide order dated 31.8.2018. Learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants, Mr. P.S. Patwalia submitted that the interest of the
appellants was only in participating in the 2016 selection process for the
post of Assistant Professor in Education, for which the last date of
application was 14.7.2016 and for which the corrigendum had been issued
on 11.7.2016. Accordingly, this Court recorded that the pendency of the
Special Leave Petitions would not stand in the way of the competent
authority proceeding with appointment of candidates of the selection
process commenced in the year 2014, since the appellants were not
challenging the said process. Thus, a quietus was sought to be put to the
selection process of 2014.
16. In view of the postponement of the examination, in terms of
order dated 12.10.2018, an interim order was passed provisionally
permitting 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 and
when the same was ready. It was clarified that this order was confined
only to those persons who were parties/intervenors/impleaders and were
before the Court on that date, as all of them were stated to have submitted
the applications before the cut-off date of 14.7.2016. The latter aspect
was clarified by an order dated 10.12.2018 that the cut-off date would
be reckoned as 5.8.2016, since the same had been modified by the
competent authority itself. Any other grievances regarding rejection of
an application on account of the same not being in conformity with the
eligibility criteria were opined not to form a part of the proceedings before
this Court and would have to be assailed in separate proceedings.
17.In view of the affidavit filed by the UGC, it was considered
appropriate to implead NCTE/respondent No. 5 in terms of the order
dated 15.1.2020.
18. The ground level development which took place was that 6793
candidates were invited to appear for the written examination, which
took place on 12.1.2019 for the post of Assistant Professor (Education)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
937
and the final answer key were published on 29.5.2019. The successful
candidates were shortlisted for interviews, which were conducted from
18.2.2020 to 27.2.2020. The results were accordingly sought to be
submitted in a sealed cover before this Court. The results were, however,
not declared. The COVID-19 situation intervened and when the matter
came up ultimately on 31.7.2020, it was deemed appropriate to hear the
matter finally in view of the educational requirements and, thus, leave
was granted and arguments proceeded. The occasion to peruse the
results, thus, did not arise.
19. It would be relevant to turn to the affidavit of the UGC at this
stage, which unequivocally stated that both M.A. (Education) and M.Ed.
degrees are specified as master's level degrees. Per Clause 8 of the
University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards of Instruction for
the Grant of the Master's Degree through Formal Education) Regulations,
2003, an M.A. (Education) degree may be awarded only after a student
successfully completes a minimum of two years after the first degree.
The affidavit also made a reference to Regulation 4.4.1 of the UGC
Regulations, which required, inter alia, "Master's Degree level in a
relevant subject." The advertisement and corrigendum issued by
respondent No. 2 was, thus, not found to be in derogation of the UGC
Regulations, but it was opined that the UGC does not determine the
equivalence of degrees. It was also opined that M.A. (Education) is a
regular programme, while M.Ed. is a professional programme. The
concerned authority to go into such equivalence was the NCTE/
respondent No. 5 and this is what eventually caused the impleadment of
the NCTE.
20. On notice being issued, the NCTE filed a counter-affidavit.
The difference in approach and curriculum of the two degrees is set out
in para 13:
"13. It is submitted that the M.Ed programme is a specifically
designed as a practitioner's degree, for students who wish to acquire
the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to work in a
professional field. As a professional degree, the M.Ed. is intended
for students who wish, upon graduation, to assume positions of
leadership in a practical setting or positions requiring more advanced
study than that available at the bachelor's level (e.g., as an
instructional technologist or as a district resource teacher). The
M.Ed. is not a research degree in the sense that the student is not
ANAND YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
required to carry out and defend an independent research project.
However, the M.Ed. programme is nevertheless research-based
in that consideration of educationally relevant research constitutes
a major focus of study and students are normally required to take
a number of research-relevant courses (e.g., statistics courses)
whereas MA Degree is mainly intended for students interested in
conducting a research study or who wish, upon graduation, to
assume a research position or to proceed to doctoral level studies.
Accordingly, the M.A. programme is designed specifically as a
research degree, with students required to carry out and complete
an independent research project (Master's Thesis). Completion
of a master's thesis is viewed as a pre-requisite for the pursuit of
doctoral studies in most institutions."
21. In view of what was stated, the conclusion was set out in para
14 of the counter affidavit to the effect that the M.Ed. is a master's
degree recognised by apex bodies like UGC and NCTE for appointment
as an Assistant Professor in Education and persons with such a degree
are also eligible for NET/SLET/JRF, while M.A. (Education) is also a
master'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 a
meeting constituted to re-examine the issue of equivalence of NCTE
recognised M.Ed. programme of one-year duration with that of M.A.
(Education), which met on 27th and 28th September, 2018. The members
of the Committee were as under:
i. Prof. Mohammed Miyan, Professor of Education and former
Vice Chancellor, Maulana Azad National Urdu University,
Hyderabad - Chair of the Committee.
ii. Dr. Renu Batra, Additional Secretary, UGC, New Delhi -
Member.
iii. Prof. Ramesh Ghanta, President, Indian Association of Teacher
Education, Ex Professor of Maulana Azad National Urdu
University, Hyderabad - Member.
(iv) Dr. S.K. Chauhan, Under Secretary, NCTE - Convenor.
The background of the meeting was the judgment of the High
Court, which has been impugned before us. It would be useful to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
939
reproduce the relevant portion of the minutes as they reflect directly on
the 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 at
preparing the teachers for the school system and also teacher
educators for teacher education institutions. These courses are
run almost for the last one century without any dispute with regard
to their nature and professionalism.
2. It is evident from the details of the curriculum framework for
programmes, M.Ed. and M.A. (Education), the subjects and
expected process of transaction is altogether different. The M.A.
(Education) course is mostly designed only with a theoretical base
without pedagogical orientation. Therefore, M.A. (Education)
programme is primarily be considered as a disciplinary programme
in education, whereas, B.Ed. and M.Ed. are professional
programmes. Further, to clarify that M.A. (Education) is of 2year duration course after first degree. Whereas B.Ed. is one
year after first degree and M.Ed., under reference is one year
programme. It means, to acquire M.Ed., degree one has to spend
2 years after first degree because for admission to M.Ed., B.Ed.
is mandatory. Therefore, from the point of view of duration and
curricular inputs, M.Ed. qualify itself as a master's programme in
education. M.Ed. is also recognized by UGC and NCTE, Apex
bodies as masters' degree in teacher education and the difference
is, M.Ed. is a professional degree whereas M.A. (Education is a
degree in the Discipline of Education.
3. Candidates with M.Ed. qualifications are also eligible for
appearing NET/JRF examinations and eligible for the post of
Assistant 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, where
M.A. (Education) programme is offered in comparison to M.Ed.
programme offered by the same university, or by other universities
in the country, it is observed that the focus in M.A. (Education) is
on theoretical aspects of education leaving no place for pedagogy
or school experience and community engagement. Whereas in
the case of M.Ed., the curriculum offered in continuation of B.Ed.
ANAND YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
course, the programme focus on the foundation courses at
advanced level. Further, the course work is designed in addition
to the above, pedagogical orientation/school and community
engagement are well integrated as such, one can construe on the
basis of curricular inputs of these two courses. M.Ed. students
are having an integral orientation to education, whereas M.A.
(Education) students are grounded in theory alongwith allied aspects
of education without professional orientation.
5. NCTE also makes M.Ed./M.A. (Education) with B.Ed. as
eligible 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 in
pedagogy and school experience.
It is, therefore, concluded that M.Ed. is a masters' degree
recognized by Apex Bodies like UGC and NCTE for appointment as an
Assistant Professor in Education and they are also eligible for NET/
SLET/JRF. On the other hand, M.A. (Education) is also a masters' degree
but not a professional masters' degree and therefore, comparison of
M.A. (Education) with M.Ed. is not tenable. Therefore, wherever, B.A.
(Education) or M.A. (Education) courses are offered, to teach the courses
along with M.A. (Education), M.Ed. candidates are also eligible."
The Case of the Appellants:
23. The contours of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, rest in the following terms:
i.
While emphasising on the question required to be determined
in this case of eligibility to be appointed to the post of Assistant
Professor (Education) on the strength of their M.Ed. degree,
it was contended that neither the appellants nor similarly
situated 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 opined
that M.Ed. degree is indeed as master's degree in education,
but 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 Committee
constituted to re-examine the issue of equivalence of NCTE
recognised M.Ed. programme with that of M.A. (Education)
found that: (a) from the point of view of duration and curricular
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
inputs, M.Ed. is a master's programme in education as
recognised by respondent Nos. 4 & 5, (b) M.Ed. is a
professional degree, whereas an M.A. (Education) is an
academic degree, i.e., it is a degree in the discipline of
education; and (c) Candidates with an M.Ed. degree are
eligible 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 eligible
for 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 stating
that equivalence of degrees is decided by the employing
organisation and in the present case, respondent No. 2 being
the employing organisation, sought the opinion of the expert
panel, and thereafter took a decision, which was impugned
in the writ petition, permitting M.Ed. degree as an eligible
qualification for appointment. Thus, the correctness of such
a decision, based on the view of experts, ought not to be
questioned or gone into in judicial review.
5 supra
Before Amendment
After Amendment
(a) A consistently good academic record with
first or high second class (55% marks/grade
B in the seven point scale) Master's Degree
in any subject and also a degree in education
of an Indian University or equivalent degree
of foreign University (relaxable if a candidate
has to his credit research work of very high
standard) and
A good academic record with at least first or
high second class (grade B in the seven point
scale) at Master's Degree in Education and
not necessarily also at Master's Degree in the
relevant subject (relaxable work of very high
standard or University approved teacher
before January 27, 1976).
(b) An M. Phil degree or a recognised degree
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
(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).
(b) No change.
ANAND YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
vi.
Several institutions across different States are considering
persons with an M.Ed. degree for such appointments.
vii.
The judgment in the Dr. Prit Singh5 case is clearly
distinguishable on the facts as in that case a separate degree
in education was required. The controversy related to
qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal of a
recognised college of education. The qualifications were as
under:
It may be noted that initially, the appointment of the appellant
therein was negated as he did not have the requisite
qualifications, but subsequently the norms were amended and
his appointment was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor.
However, it was found that the relevant norms as applicable
at the time of selection provided for a dual requirement, i.e.,
a Master's Degree in any subject and "also a degree in
education of an Indian University or equivalent degree of
foreign University". The academic record of the appellant
therein, i.e., the selected person was also not one to talk
home about. It is these factors which weighed with the High
Court and it is this fundamental issue of dual qualification
which resulted in the opinion of this Court while quashing
the appointment.
viii.
The distinguishing feature of Dr. Prit Singh6 case was noticed
by this Court in Dr. Ram Sevak Singh v. Dr. U.P. Singh &
Ors.7 where there was no such requirement of a dual
qualification.
ix.
The candidates with either an M.Ed. or an M.A. (Education)
qualification had to take a common test for the purposes of
obtaining the NET certificate and the successful candidates
are not distinguished on the basis of their degree.