CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

                   [2012] 2 S.C.R. 959


                CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDI                          A
                            v.
             STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 400 of 2012)
                   JANUARY 12, 2012                          B
  [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

     Service Law - Appointment - Qualification - Educational
qualification - Appointment to the post of Teacher -
Provisional selection of appellant cancelled as he had not C
passed Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination
after passing the Secondary Examination - Plea of appellant
that at the time when she passed the Secondary Examination,
it was permissible for a candidate passing the Secondary
f=xamination to get admission in the higher classes with a D
preparatory course; and that she had thereafter acquired
higher qualifications such as B.Ed. Degree as also a M.A
degree and thus, satisfied the criteria of the required
qualification for appointment to the post in question - Plea
of appellant negated by the High Court, inter alia, on the E
ground that as the appellant had not passed the Senior
Secondary Examination, which is the basic qualification for
the post in question, the candidature of appellant cannot be
considered - Held: The view taken by the High Court cannot
be appreciated - The basic qualification required was Senior F
Secondary or Intermediate or its equivalent - High Court
erroneously did not consider higher qualification as equivalent
to the qualification of passing Senior Secondary examination
even in respect of a candidate who was provisionally selected
- The word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning G
- By using the expression, 'equivalent' one means that there
are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not
lower the stated requirement - There has to be some
difference between wh_at. is equivalent and what is exact -
                           959                               H
    960      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 2 S.C.R.

A Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a
    cel1ain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection
    being continued also comes into existence - Appellant should
    be considered reasonably and the provisional appointment
    which was given to her should not be cancelled.
B
          Words and Phrases - "equivalent" - Meaning of.

     ' The appellant was provisionally selected for
  appointment to the post of Teacher. After the appellant
  was provisionally selected, she received a letter from the
C State Public Service Commission informing her that
  provisional selection has been cancelled as the appellant
  did not pass the Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary
  Examination after passing the Secondary Examination.

       The case of the appellant was that at the time when
0
  she passed the Secondary Examination, it was
  permissible for a candidate passing the Secondary
  Examination to get admission in the higher .classes with
  a preparatory course; that the appellant thereafter
E completed her graduation, and also obtained B.Ed.
  Degree as also a M.A degree and in that view of the
  maf:ter, the appellant satisfies the criteria of the required·
  qualification for appointment to the post in question.

      The case of the appellant was, however, dismlissed
F by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that a:s the
  appellant had not passed the Senior Secondary
  Examination, which is the basic qualification for the post
  in question, the can_didature of the appellant cann1:>t be
  considered.
G
          Disposing of the appeal, the Court
        HELD:1. The view taken by the High Court cannot be
    appreciated. From the qualifications mentioned, it is clear
. / that the basic qualification is Senior~ Secondary or
H Intermediate or its equivalent. [Para 7] (963-D]
CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 961
                 & ORS.

     2. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has             A
given a finding that the higher qualification is not the
substitute for the qualification of Senior Secondary or
Intermediate. One fails to appreciate the reasoning of the
High Court to the extent that it does not consider higher
qualification as equivalent to the qualification of passing      B
Senior Secondary examination even in respect of a
candidate who was provisionally selected. The word
'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning. By
using the expression, 'equivalent' one means that there
are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not       c
lower the stated requirement. There has to be some
difference between what is equivalent and what is exact.
Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a
certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection
being continued also comes into existence. [Para 8) (963-        D·
E-G]

     3. Considering these aspects of the matter, it is clear
that the appellant should be considered reasonably and
the provisional appointment which was given to her
should not be cancelle~. It is hoped and expected the            E
respondent Public Service Commission shall make a
suitable recommendation in the light of the observation
in this judgment and the State, which is also a party, will
make an appointment accordingly thereafter. [Paras 9, 10)
(963-H; 964-A-C]                                                 F

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 400
of 2012.
     From the Judment and Order dated 19.01.2009 of the High
Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) No. 409   G
of 2008.
    Aishwarya Bhati for the Appellant.
       Surya Kant, Pranav Vyas, Dushyant Parashar, Neeraj        H
    962      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A   Kumar Sharma, Purnima Jauhani, A.V. Rangam, Buddy A.
    Rangadhan and Milind Kumar for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
          2 .. we have heard learned counsel for the parties.

       3. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment
  and order dated 19.01.2009 passed in Special Appeal No. 409
C of 2008 of the High Court of Rajasthan. The controversy arises
  out of the appellant's appointment to the post of Teacher for
  primary and upper primary schools.

      4. The appellant was provisionally selected for
  appointment to the post of Teacher. The educational
D qualification required for appointment to the Level(ll) Upper
  Primary Middle School Section is;

          (I) Senior Secondary School Certificate or intermediate or
          its equivalent; and
E         (II) Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers training
          of duration of not less than two years OR Bachelor of
          Elementary Education (B.E. Ed.) OR Graduate with
          Bachelor of Education( B.Ed) or its equivalent"
F      5. After the appellant was provisionally. selected, she
  received a letter dated 26.09.2007 from the Rajasthan Public
  Service Commission informing her that provisional selection
  has been cancelled as the appellant did not pass the Higher
  Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination after passing the
G Secondary Examination.
      6. The case of the appellant is that at the time when she
  passed the Secondary Examination, it was permissible for a
  candidate passing the Secondary Examination to get
  admission in the.higher classes with a preparatory course. The
H appellant thereafter completed her graduation from .the Indira
  CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 963
       & ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

 Gandhi Open University. Then the appellant got her B.Ed.               A
 Degree on a regular basis from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati
 University, Ajmer, Rajasthan. The appellant then also got her
 M.A degree from the same University. In that view of the matter,
 learned counsel for the appellant submits, that the appellant
 satisfies the criteria of the required qualification for appointment   B
 to the post in question. The case of the appellant has, however,
 been dismissed both by the Single Judge and also by the
 Division Bench of the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that
 as the appellant has not passed the Senior Secondary
 Examination, which is the basic qualification for the post in          c
 question, the candidature of the appellant cannot be
 considered.

     7. We fail to· appreciate the aforesaid view taken by the
 High Court. We find that from the qualifications which have been
 mentioned, it is made clear that the basic qualification is Senior     D
 Secondary or Intermediate or its equivalent. We find that the
 appellant on the basis of her qualification was provisionally
 selected after she had submitted her requisite testimonials.

       8. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has given a E
. finding that the higher qualification is not the substitute for the
  qualification of Senior Secondary or Intermediate. In the instant
  case, we fail to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to
  the extent that it does not consider higher qualification as
  equivalent to the qualification of passing Senior Secondary F
  examination even in respect of a candidate who was
  provisionally selected. The word 'equivalent' mustbe given a
  reasonable meaning. By using the expression, 'equivalent' one·
  means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment
  which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be G
  some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact.
  Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a certain
  degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being
  continued also comes into existence.

      9. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of the         H
   964       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A view that the appellant should be considered reasonably and
  the provisional appointment which was given to her should not
  be cancelled. We order accordingly.

       10. However, we make it clear that we are passing this
  order taking in our view the special facts and circumstances
8
  of the case. We hope and expect the respondent Rajasthan
  Public Service Commission shall make a suitable
  recommendation in the light of the observation in this judgment
  within four weeks from today and the State, which is .also a
C party, will make an appointment accordingly within four weeks
  thereafter.

         11. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.

   B.El.B.                                  Appeal disposed of.