1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 400  OF 2012     (arising out of)

        (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO.19000 OF 2009)   

CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDI. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY,J

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

 This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  impugned  

judgment  and  order  dated  19.01.2009  passed  in  Special  

Appeal No. 409 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.   

   The  appellant  was  provisionally  selected  for  

appointment  to  the  post  of  Teacher.  The  educational  

qualification required for appointment to the Level(II)  

Upper Primary Middle School Section is;

(I)Senior  Secondary  School  Certificate  or  intermediate or its equivalent; and

(II)Diploma  or  certificate  in  elementary

2

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”  

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 Secondary Examination.

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  appellant  thereafter  completed  her  

graduation from the Indira Gandhi Open University. Then  

the appellant got her B.Ed. 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 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

3

appellant  has  not  passed  the   Senior  Secondary  

Examination, which is the basic qualification for the  

post  in  question,  the  candidature  of  the  appellant  

cannot be considered.  

     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 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.

In the impugned judgment, the High Court has given  

a  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 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 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

4

degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being  

continued also comes into existence.

Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of  

the  view  that  the  appellant  should  be  considered  

reasonably  and  the  provisional  appointment  which  was  

given  to  her  should  not  be  cancelled.  We  order  

accordingly.

However, we make it clear that we are passing this  

order  taking  in  our  view  the  special  facts  and  

circumstances  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 party, will  make  

an appointment accordingly within four weeks thereafter.

The appeal is disposed of.  No costs.

 .................J     (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

            ...................J  

                                       (T.S. THAKUR) New Delhi; Dated: JANUARY 12, 2012