The Delhi High Court has held that where recruitment rules specifically require a Bachelor’s degree in a particular discipline, a candidate who only holds a general Bachelor’s degree and a later Master’s degree in that discipline cannot claim eligibility merely on the basis of holding a “higher” qualification. A higher qualification does not automatically subsume the prescribed lower qualification, especially where the statutory or recruitment framework does not say so, and particularly where the candidate never possessed the exact lower qualification required for the post.
The Court also laid down that the prevailing legal position is that higher qualifications do not, by themselves, entitle a candidate to seek recruitment to posts meant for persons with lower or specifically prescribed qualifications. The High Court therefore quashed the CAT’s ruling and held that the respondents were not eligible for recruitment as Domestic Science Teacher because they did not possess the prescribed Bachelor’s degree in Domestic Science/Home Science. As a result, the petition filed by GNCTD and DSSSB was allowed
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar first rejected the argument that a BA (Pass) degree can be equated with a Bachelor’s degree in Domestic Science/Home Science merely because that subject was studied during the course. The Court held that a dedicated Bachelor’s degree in a discipline is qualitatively different from a general BA (Pass) degree in which the subject is only one among several subjects. It observed that the required qualification had to be in that specific discipline, and a BA (Pass) qualification could not satisfy that requirement.
The Court then examined the broader legal issue of whether possession of a higher qualification automatically satisfies a lower prescribed qualification. It noted that some earlier cases had recognised higher qualifications in specific contexts, especially where rules expressly allowed higher qualifications that presupposed lower qualifications, or where ambiguity in the advertisement existed.
However, the High Court found that the Supreme Court decision in Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P [2025 SCC OnLine SC 711] clearly recognised that whether higher qualifications can substitute prescribed qualifications depends on the rules, the post, the nature of duties, and broader public interest considerations. The Supreme Court in Jomon had also stressed that employers may legitimately restrict posts to candidates with the exact prescribed qualification so that overqualified candidates do not monopolise opportunities meant for others.
The High Court further observed that in the present case the respondents’ problem was even more fundamental: they never held a Bachelor’s degree in Domestic Science/Home Science at all, because they had pursued BA (Pass) degrees. The Court said that the principle of a higher qualification presupposing a lower one cannot be applied where it was impossible for the candidate to have possessed the lower qualification in the first place. In the Court’s words, a deeming fiction cannot conflict with plain reality.
The Court also added a fairness and policy perspective. It observed that students who pursue an exclusive Bachelor’s degree in a specific subject consciously narrow their academic path and career choices from an early stage. Allowing general graduates with a later Master’s degree to compete for such posts would unfairly disadvantage candidates who had followed the dedicated academic route from graduation itself. The Court said an employer is entitled to prescribe a specific qualification and courts should ordinarily not interfere with that choice.
Briefly, the case arose from DSSSB Advertisement Notice No. 04/17 dated 20 December 2017 for appointment to the post of Domestic Science Teacher (TGT), Post Code 92/17. The prescribed essential qualification included: (i) a Bachelor’s Degree in Domestic Science/Home Science from a recognised university/institute, and (ii) a Bachelor’s in Education with Domestic Science/Home Science as a teaching subject. The respondents had BA (Pass) degrees and Master’s Degrees in Domestic Science/Home Science. They were initially selected and issued offers of appointment, but those offers were later revoked on 12 March 2020 on the ground that they did not possess the qualification specifically required under the Recruitment Rules.
The respondents challenged the revocation before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Their case was essentially that a Master’s degree in Home Science/Domestic Science is a higher qualification than a Bachelor’s degree in that subject, and that this higher qualification should be treated as sufficient compliance with the eligibility requirement. They also argued that since Home Science/Domestic Science had been studied by them during all three years of their BA (Pass) course, they should be treated as possessing a Bachelor’s degree in that discipline. The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ case and directed GNCTD to treat them as eligible and offer them appointment if they satisfied the other eligibility conditions.
