Degree Means Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctorate—Restricting It to Graduation Alone Is Arbitrary and Unconstitutional: Apex Court Slams Jharkhand’s Interpretation

No Logic in Excluding Master's Degree Holders From FSO Recruitment - Supreme Court of India delivered a powerful verdict in the case of Chandra Shekhar Singh & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others, holding that candidates possessing postgraduate degrees in Microbiology and Food Science & Technology were wrongly disqualified from selection for the post of Food Safety Officer (FSO). The Court set aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, terming the rejection of candidates with higher qualifications as unjust, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
“If a Candidate With a Master’s Degree in Chemistry Is Eligible, Why Not in Microbiology or Food Technology?”—Court Finds Inconsistency in State’s Criteria
The appellants, all postgraduates in Microbiology and Food Technology, had applied for the post of FSO pursuant to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission’s (JPSC) Advertisement No. 01/2016, which stipulated eligibility as a “Degree” in specific disciplines, including Microbiology and Food Technology, while also separately recognizing a “Master’s Degree in Chemistry” as valid.
Though the appellants qualified the written exam and were called for interviews, they were suddenly disqualified on the ground that the term “degree” meant only a Bachelor’s degree, and since they did not hold a bachelor’s degree in the specified fields, they were ineligible.
The Court, however, ruled: “There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having Master’s or Doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO. Such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.”
“The Word ‘Degree’ in Statutes Includes Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate”—Supreme Court Upholds UGC and FSS Rules Interpretation
Citing Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Court observed that the word “degree” by legal definition includes all three levels—Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate.
The Court further held that under Section 37(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), only the Central Government is authorized to prescribe qualifications for FSOs. The Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, framed under the Act, do not restrict the word “degree” to just the undergraduate level, and instead explicitly recognize Master’s Degree in Chemistry, thereby implying the acceptance of higher degrees across other subjects too.
“Reading the statutory language in its literal sense and applying the golden rule of interpretation, the only permissible conclusion is that candidates possessing a Master’s degree in these subjects are eligible.”

“The FSS Act Grants No Power to States to Prescribe or Alter Eligibility Criteria”—Court Declares State's Restriction as Ultra Vires
The Court decisively ruled that Jharkhand State had no authority to restrict eligibility criteria, and that such interpretation amounted to impermissible deviation from centrally prescribed norms. The State had relied on its own interpretation that only Bachelor’s degrees would be valid for disciplines like Microbiology or Food Technology, except in Chemistry where a Master's was allowed.
Refuting this, the Court observed: “Neither in the Act nor in the Rules has the State Government been given authority to prescribe qualifications for the post of FSO.”
“The prescription of qualifications is within the exclusive domain of the Central Government.”

“Central Government’s 2022 Amendment Clarifies the Confusion”—Supreme Court Recognizes Legislative Intention to Include All Degrees
The Court took judicial notice of the Food Safety and Standards (First Amendment) Rules, 2022, which explicitly clarified that a Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctorate degree in the relevant subjects shall be valid for the post of FSO.
The Court held that even though this amendment came after the 2016 recruitment, it served to clarify the existing position rather than alter it:
“This amendment has been brought around to clear the air in respect of the confusion prevailing regarding the eligibility criteria for the post of FSO.”

“Once Candidates Were Allowed to Write the Exam and Called for Interview, They Cannot Be Disqualified Later”—Court Upholds Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
The appellants were allowed to participate in the written examination and were called for interviews based on their performance, before being abruptly disqualified. The Court found this administrative conduct highly improper, observing that:
“The respondent-recruiting authority consciously accepted the application forms… It is at the interview stage that they were ousted from the process.”
The Court held that this violated the principle of fairness in public recruitment and denied the appellants a legitimate opportunity to compete.

Final Relief: “Create Supernumerary Posts If Needed—Appellants Must Be Considered Without Disrupting Existing Appointments”
The Court, while recognizing that fresh recruitment had already taken place and the appellants did not apply under the 2023 advertisement, directed a balancing remedy:
•    The appellants must be allowed to participate in the 2016 recruitment process from the interview stage.
•    If required, the State must create supernumerary posts to accommodate them without disturbing the appointments already made.
•    If selected, the appellants will be given notional seniority and service benefits, but no back wages.
The Court clarified: “Since the selected candidates were not impleaded, their seniority position is not to be disturbed. Successful appellants shall be placed below the last selected candidate.”
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State of Jharkhand is a decisive reaffirmation that educational qualifications must be interpreted inclusively and fairly, and that higher degrees cannot be penalised by restrictive administrative interpretation. The verdict ensures a more equitable application of qualification norms across states and asserts the primacy of Central legislation in service recruitment governed by Union laws.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2025