Editor,

I wish to draw the attention of the concerned authorities, policymakers and the general public to a fundamental legal distinction that has significant implications for the ongoing controversy surrounding the eligibility criteria for the recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) in Arunachal Pradesh.

The controversy arising from the petition filed by certain aspirants apparently seeking a five per cent relaxation in the prescribed undergraduate qualifying marks warrants a careful examination of the constitutional framework governing education, the statutory authority of universities to confer academic qualifications, and the powers of the state government to prescribe recruitment conditions.

At the outset, it is essential to distinguish between the authority to confer an academic degree and the authority to prescribe or relax eligibility conditions for public employment. These are separate legal functions vested in different institutions and governed by distinct statutory provisions. Any interpretation that conflates the two risks undermining the sanctity of academic qualifications and creating uncertainty in the recruitment process.

Under Article 246 read with Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, education falls within the concurrent legislative domain of parliament and state legislatures, subject to the constitutional limitations and the applicable central legislation. Accordingly, the state government possesses legislative and executive authority, within its constitutional competence, to formulate policies and prescribe recruitment rules for teachers in its educational institutions. In Arunachal Pradesh, the department of education frames and notifies the applicable recruitment rules from time to time, while the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) conducts the selection process in accordance with those rules.

However, the authority to formulate recruitment policies does not extend to altering academic qualifications already conferred by a university under its governing statutes and ordinances. Universities independently award degrees and determine their classification upon completion of the prescribed academic requirements. This distinction is neither procedural nor incidental; it goes to the very foundation of institutional authority and the legal validity of academic credentials.

For instance, Rajiv Gandhi University (RGU), under its applicable examination ordinances, classifies undergraduate degrees into three divisions: First Division for 60 per cent and above, Second Division for 45 per cent and above but below 60 per cent, and simple Pass Division for marks below 45 per cent.

A relaxation in recruitment eligibility cannot, by its own force, convert a university-conferred simple Pass Division into a Second Division. A candidate who has been awarded a degree carrying a particular classification cannot acquire a different academic division merely through an administrative concession or a judicial order relaxing the qualifying marks for a recruitment examination. Such a change would require a lawful basis under the university's own governing framework; it cannot be presumed to follow automatically from a relaxation in employment eligibility.

The distinction is particularly important in the present controversy. If the applicable recruitment rules prescribe a second-class undergraduate degree as an essential qualification, corresponding to a minimum of 45 per cent marks, the requirement must be interpreted in conjunction with the academic classification formally awarded by the concerned university. A relaxation, if permissible under the governing recruitment rules, may address the eligibility of a candidate for consideration in a particular selection process. It does not, however, amend the university ordinance, revise the candidate's examination marks or retrospectively confer a different academic division.

The legal question, therefore, is not simply whether a percentage-based relaxation can be granted, but whether such relaxation can lawfully be extended to candidates who do not possess the academic qualification expressly stipulated in the recruitment rules. The distinction between relaxing a condition of recruitment and dispensing with an essential academic qualification must be maintained. Otherwise, the very purpose of prescribing minimum educational standards in public recruitment would be rendered uncertain.

The implications of granting the requested apparently prayed relaxation are far-reaching. The final results of six subjects-English, Hindi, History, Political Science, Economics and Chemistry-have already been affected by the pending litigation. Candidates who have fulfilled the prescribed eligibility requirements and participated in the selection process in accordance with the notified rules have legitimate interests that deserve equal protection under the principles of fairness and equality in public employment.

The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench, is respectfully urged to examine the distinction between academic qualification and recruitment eligibility in its proper legal perspective. Any determination concerning relaxation should be grounded in the express provisions of the applicable recruitment rules and should not inadvertently be construed as altering academic qualifications conferred under university ordinances.

An aspirant