Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4 stating therein that paragraph 16 of the letter dated 18.01.2021 of the Director General, School Education and Director of State Project addressed to all Collectors and District Basic Education Officers of the State provides that such candidates who have completed two regular courses in same academic session as a regular student, their selection is not legal because of Paragraph 16 of the letter dated 18.01.2021, therefore, the District Selection Committee decided to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. The further case of the respondent is that the minutes of the meeting of the Expert Committee constituted by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) reveal that it had considered the issue of pursuing more than one degree simultaneously, and U.G.C. issued a notification dated 15.01.2016 by which it did not endorse the idea of pursuing two-degree courses simultaneously. Accordingly, it is stated that as the petitioner could not pursue two regular courses simultaneously, therefore, she cannot be appointed. Consequently, her appointment has been cancelled.

20. The perusal of paragraph 16 of the letter dated 18.01.2021 though indicates that a candidate shall become ineligible for the appointment if he had pursued two-degree courses simultaneously as a regular student, but the fact remains that in the absence of any statutory provisions prohibiting the pursuing of two-degree courses simultaneously, can such a condition be imposed by a letter of Director General, School Education and Director of State Project dated 18.01.2021. In the opinion of the Court, the answer to the same is emphatic 'No' for the reason that there is no provision in the law that has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel which prohibits a candidate to pursue two courses simultaneously. If there is no statute prohibiting pursuing two courses simultaneously and if there is no illegality attached to pursuing two courses simultaneously and obtaining a degree then a candidate cannot be disqualified on the ground that he has pursued two courses i.e. B.Ed. And B.T.C. Simultaneously. In such view of the fact, this Court finds that paragraph 16 of the letter dated 18.01.2021 is arbitrary and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

22. Similarly, in the case of A. Dharmraj (supra) the Apex Court almost in identical circumstances has held that cancellation of appointment of a candidate for pursuing two degrees simultaneously is illegal when there is no bar in the statute. In this respect, the Court observed that even if one of the degrees i.e. the subsequent degree obtained by the appellant namely M.A. (Tamil) is ignored, the appellant could have been promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) because of the degree of B.A. (English) obtained by him. Paragraphs No. 5 and 5.1 of the judgment are reproduced herein below:

27. Now coming to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is premature as it has been instituted against the show cause notice. In this regard, it is apposite to state that though it is settled in law that this Court should refrain from interfering at the stage of show cause notice, there is no bar that this Court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the notice itself is bad as having been issued on irrelevant considerations. In the instant case, the only allegation in the notice is that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on account of obtaining two degrees simultaneously, besides this, no other ground has been raised for invalidating the appointment of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit also the only stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed because of para 16 of the letter dated 18.01.2021 as she has pursued two courses simultaneously.