Supreme Court settles M.Ed. Degree as eligible qualification for Assistant Professor in Education: Anand Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2020) INSC 581 (12 October 2020)

Case Background

The dispute originated from Advertisement No. 46 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection Commission (UPHESSC) in March 2014, which invited applications for the post of Assistant Professors in various subjects, including ‘Education’. The candidature of one of the appellants, who held an M.Ed. degree, was rejected on the grounds that he did not meet the minimum criteria set by the University Grants Commission (UGC). This led to the filing of Writ-A No. 61 of 2015 in the High Court.

Subsequently, Advertisement No. 47 of 2016 was issued for the same post, specifying the eligibility criteria as a 55% score in the relevant subject at the Post Graduate Level and passing marks in the National Eligibility Test (NET) or equivalent. A controversy arose regarding whether an M.Ed. degree could be considered equivalent to an M.A. (Education) degree for the post of Assistant Professor.

To resolve this, UPHESSC constituted a four-member expert panel. The panel unanimously opined that both M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. degrees should be accepted, as the NET/JRF test is the same for both. This led to a corrigendum on 11.07.2016, which was then challenged by respondent No. 3, an applicant, in Writ-A No. 16127 of 2017.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court, relying on the judgment in Dr. Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal & Ors. (1993 Supp (1) SCC 714) and Praveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2014 SCC OnLine HP 4307), held that an M.Ed. degree is not equivalent to an M.A. (Education) degree, as it is merely a training qualification. Consequently, the High Court quashed the corrigendum dated 11.07.2016, which had allowed M.Ed. degree holders to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in Education.

Aggrieved by this decision, candidates with M.Ed. qualifications filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court impleaded the UGC and NCTE as respondents to get their expert opinions on the matter.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several legal provisions and regulations, including:

• Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: This section specifies that the right to confer degrees is vested with universities established by law. Sub-section (3) defines a “degree” as one approved by the Central Government and specified by the Commission.
  
  “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
  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.”
• 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: Regulation 4.4.1 stipulates that a Master’s Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks is required for the post of Assistant Professor.
• Regulation 4.4.7 of the UGC Regulations: This regulation contains the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for faculty positions, which includes M.Ed. with 55% marks or M.A. in Education with 55% marks along with B.Ed.
  
  “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
  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.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court’s decision was flawed as neither the affected candidates nor the statutory authorities (UGC and NCTE) were made parties.
• The UGC had clarified that an M.Ed. degree is a master’s degree in education, but the equivalence of degrees is to be determined by the NCTE.
• The NCTE, after re-examining the issue, found that M.Ed. is a master’s program in education and a professional degree, while M.A. (Education) is an academic degree.
• The appellants contended that the employing organization, UPHESSC, had sought the opinion of an expert panel and decided to accept M.Ed. as an eligible qualification.
• The judgment in Dr. Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal & Ors. was distinguishable as it involved a dual requirement of a Master’s degree in any subject and a degree in education, which is not the case here.
• The appellants relied on Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404, arguing that the equivalence of qualifications is a matter for the state to determine, and judicial review should not expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications.
  
  “26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation
  which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. (2010)
  15 SCC 596 in the subsequent decision in Anita (2015) 2
  SCC 170. The decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned on the
  provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not
  be permissible to draw an inference that a higher
  qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of
  another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of
  qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy.
  The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the
  qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the
  role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit
  of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a
  qualification is not a matter which can be determined in
  exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a
  particular qualification should or should not be regarded as
  equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting
  authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra)
  turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding
  of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of
  a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the
  present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate
  outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of
  the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the
  learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that
  the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We
  find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.
  27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State,
  as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features
  including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the
  efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a
  qualification and the content of the course of studies which
  leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is
  entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public
  services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall
  within the domain of administrative decision-making. The
  state as a public employer may well take into account social
  perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities
  across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters
  of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the
  decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) must be understood in the
  context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding
  of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition
  of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for
  the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the
  decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned.”

Contesting Respondent No. 3’s Arguments:

• The contesting respondent argued that M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. are different courses, as recognized by various High Courts.
• The NCTE had taken a stand before the Gujarat High Court that the equivalence of degrees is not within its competence.
• The Ministry of Human Resource Development stated that M.A. (Education) is for teaching at the college level, while M.Ed. is for teaching in schools.
• The contesting respondent contended that the advertisement was for 100 seats in Education (Arts Faculty), and M.Ed. is a teacher training degree, not an academic one.
• The UGC notification specified that B.A. and M.A. come under Arts/Humanities, while B.Ed. and M.Ed. come under teacher training categories.
• M.A. is a two-year master’s program, while M.Ed. was a one-year teacher training program (at the time of the advertisement).
• The contesting respondent relied on Dr. M.S. Mudhol & Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 591 to argue that M.A. (Education) is an academic qualification, while M.Ed. is a professional qualification.
  
  “4. The contention of the respondents that M.Ed. ( sic M.A.) 2nd
  Division was equivalent to M.A. ( sic M.Ed.) 2nd Division is
  obviously fallacious. The former is the academic qualification
  while the latter a professional qualification. Secondly, the course of
  the former is whole-time spread over no less that two years while
  the course of the latter is part-time and is spread over one year. In
  any case, the statutory rule with regard to the essential
  qualifications is very clear inasmuch as it requires both academic
  Masters’ degree and the teaching degree, the latter being not the
  substitute for the former. What is further, while laying down the
  qualifications with regard to the academic degree viz. the Masters’
  degree, the rule insists upon 2nd Division for such degree. It does
  not insist upon a 2nd Division degree in teaching. A pass degree is
  sufficient in its eyes. It would, therefore, amount to distorting the
  requisite qualifications under the rules, to attempt to substitute the
  teaching qualification for the academic qualification and
  exchanging the divisions of the two…….”
• The expert opinion obtained for Advertisement No. 46 of 2014 found M.Ed. candidates ineligible.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether an M.Ed. degree can be considered equivalent to an M.A. (Education) degree for the purpose of appointment as an Assistant Professor in Education.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the corrigendum dated 11.07.2016, which allowed M.Ed. degree holders to apply for the post.
3. Whether the judgment in Dr. Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal & Ors. is applicable to the present case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court distinguished the judgment in Dr. Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal & Ors. (1993 Supp (1) SCC 714), stating that it was based on a dual qualification requirement not present in this case.
• The court did not follow the judgment in Praveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2014 SCC OnLine HP 4307), stating it was based on a misinterpretation of the Dr. Prit Singh case.
• The court followed the judgment in Dr. Ram Sevak Singh v. Dr. U.P . Singh & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 189), which clarified the distinguishing feature of the Dr. Prit Singh case.
• The court followed the judgment in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404), emphasizing that the equivalence of qualifications is a matter for the state to determine.
• The court distinguished the judgment in Dr. M.S. Mudhol & Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 591), stating that the case involved different facts and statutory rules.
• The court considered Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 to understand the power to confer degrees and the definition of a degree.
• The court considered 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 to understand the minimum qualifications for Assistant Professors.
• The court considered Regulation 4.4.7 of the UGC Regulations to understand the qualifications prescribed by NCTE for faculty positions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by several key considerations:

• Expert Opinions: The Court placed significant weight on the opinions of expert bodies like the UGC and NCTE, as well as the expert panel constituted by UPHESSC. The Court emphasized that matters of education should be left to educationists.
• Recognition of M.Ed.: The Court noted that both the UGC and NCTE recognized M.Ed. as a master’s degree, thus settling the debate on whether it is a post-graduate degree.
• Equivalence for Specific Post: The Court clarified that while M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. are different degrees, they can be considered equivalent for the specific purpose of appointment as Assistant Professor in Education, especially when the employer and expert bodies have opined in favor of such equivalence.
• Distinction of Precedents: The Court distinguished the Dr. Prit Singh case, highlighting that it was based on a dual qualification requirement not applicable in the present case.
• Employer’s Decision: The Court respected the employer’s (UPHESSC) decision to accept the expert panel’s recommendation, emphasizing that the employer is the best judge of who should be appointed, subject to relevant statutes and regulations.
• Procedural Fairness: The Court expressed reservations about the High Court’s decision, which was made without hearing the relevant authorities (UGC and NCTE) and the affected candidates.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law is approximately 60% fact and 40% law. The Court heavily relied on the facts of the case, including the expert opinions and the specific circumstances of the advertisement and the corrigendum. The legal reasoning was primarily used to interpret relevant regulations and to distinguish previous judgments.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The Court held that M.Ed. degree holders are eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in Education.

Implications of the Judgment:

• Clarity on M.Ed. Eligibility: The judgment provides much-needed clarity on the eligibility of M.Ed. degree holders for the post of Assistant Professor in Education.
• Validation of Corrigendum: The Court upheld the corrigendum dated 11.07.2016, which had accepted M.Ed. as an eligible qualification.
• Respect for Expert Opinions: The judgment emphasizes the importance of respecting the opinions of expert bodies like the UGC and NCTE in matters of education.
• Employer’s Discretion: The Court affirmed that the employer has the discretion to determine the equivalence of qualifications, subject to relevant statutes and regulations.
• Precedent for Similar Cases: The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases involving the equivalence of educational qualifications for teaching positions.

Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process