Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Tuesday, 11 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-01-31 allowed

Ashish Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Bench: 2 — Ashok Bhushan

In Brief

Ashish Kumar applied for the post of Psychologist advertised by Uttar Pradesh's Social Welfare Department. Though he held a B.A. and M.A. in Psychology, he lacked L.T./B.T./B.Ed. training qualifications. He passed the written test and was selected, but was denied appointment at document verification. The High Court upheld the denial, interpreting the advertisement as requiring both Psychology graduation AND teacher training. The Supreme Court held that the advertisement used a stroke (/) to indicate alternative qualifications, not cumulative ones. Moreover, under the 1991 statutory rules governing recruitment, M.A. in Psychology was the essential qualification; B.Ed. was merely preferable. As the appellant fulfilled the statutory essential qualification and was already selected, denying him the appointment letter was illegal. The Court ordered his immediate appointment."

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Administrative Law Statutory Recruitment Rules Civil Service Appointment Statutory Construction

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login