The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ court cannot act as an academic expert to determine whether a degree not prescribed under the applicable service rules should be treated as equivalent to the required qualification.
Justice Siddharth Nandan passed the order while hearing a challenge concerning eligibility for the post of Assistant Teacher (Male/Female) (Computer). The Court noted that the governing rules did not provide for consideration of equivalent qualifications.
Background
The petitioners had applied pursuant to Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2025 for the post of Assistant Teacher, Trained Graduate Grade (Computer). The advertisement prescribed qualifications including B.Tech./B.E. in Computer Science, graduation in Computer Science or Computer Application, graduation with an ‘A’ Level course from NIELIT, or certain combinations involving Computer Science and MCA.
The petitioners contended that B.Tech. (Information Technology) should also be treated as equivalent to B.Tech. (Computer Science), pointing to subjects such as programming, database systems, software engineering, operating systems, computer networking and algorithms in the IT curriculum.
The Commission opposed any departure from the qualifications expressly mentioned in the advertisement, stating that doing so could affect transparency and place candidates who did not apply on the basis of the advertised qualifications in an unequal position.
The Court had earlier sought the State Government's position on the treatment of different degrees as equivalent qualifications. The Government informed the Court that an Inter-Departmental Committee had been constituted in 2023 following an earlier judicial direction.
Based on the Committee's recommendation, the Sixth Amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983 was notified on January 30, 2025. The amended rules prescribed specific qualifications for the Computer teacher post and did not provide for consideration of equivalent courses.
Justice Siddharth Nandan observed:
“This Court is constrained to hold that the law governing the area i.e. Rules, 2024, after having prescribed the qualifications and there being no stipulation for consideration of any equivalent subject, as desired by the petitioners in the present writ petition, now in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an Academic Expert for determining the equivalence of the educational qualification.”
The Court therefore found that the petitioners did not possess the eligibility prescribed in the advertisement for the Assistant Teacher (Computer) post.
The High Court held that since the 2024 Rules did not permit consideration of equivalent subjects, no further intervention was required.
The Court declined to grant relief and consigned the writ petition to record.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kopal Bhartiya and 7 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case Number: Writ-A No. 12563 of 2026
Judge: Justice Siddharth Nandan
Decision Date: September 23, 2026
