A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Chandra Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 129 : 2025 INSC 372, addresses whether the word degree in the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 and in a state recruitment advertisement for Food Safety Officer (FSO) can be confined to an undergraduate qualification or whether it embraces postgraduate and doctoral qualifications as well.

The appellants, who possessed Master’s degrees in relevant sciences (microbiology, food science and technology), were shortlisted but later disqualified by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on the ground that the advertisement required only a degree at the graduate level for specified subjects, with an explicit reference to Master’s degree in Chemistry only.

The High Court upheld disqualification. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme notably Sections 37, 91 and 94 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the definition of degree under Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and applied the golden rule of interpretation.

The Court concluded that, absent an express exclusion, degree includes Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees; the special mention of Master’s degree in Chemistry imposes a higher minimum only for Chemistry, not an exclusion for other subjects.

The appeal was allowed and the appellants were directed to be reinstated at the interview stage, with provision for supernumerary posts if necessary; appointments, if made, were to be without back wages but with notional service benefits.

Keywords: degree; Food Safety Officer; FSS Rules 2011; UGC Act s.22(3); interpretation of qualification.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from a recruitment process initiated by Jharkhand Public Service Commission under Advertisement No. 01/2016 for appointment as Food Safety Officers. The central statutory framework is the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) which, by s.37 and s.91, vests the Central Government with power to prescribe qualifications for FSOs and to make rules.

The Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 (FSS 2011 Rules) set out qualification requirements in Rule 2.1.3, using the phrase “a degree in … or Master’s degree in Chemistry”. The appellants held postgraduate degrees in subjects listed in Rule 2.1.3 (for example, Microbiology; Food Science & Technology) and applied; they cleared the written exam and were called for interview.

During recruitment they were disqualified on the view that degree in the advertisement meant only undergraduate degree for those subjects, and only for Chemistry was a Master’s acceptable. The High Court endorsed that restricted reading. The appellants challenged, relying on the statutory meaning of degree under UGC Act s.22(3), earlier precedents (notably Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of J&K), and a later 2022 amendment to the FSS Rules which expressly clarified that Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctorate degree would qualify.

The Supreme Court was asked to resolve whether, as a matter of interpretation, degree in the Rules and advertisement should be confined to undergraduate level for certain subjects or should be read generically to include postgraduate degrees unless expressly excluded.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Appellants possessed Master’s degrees in relevant disciplines and applied for FSO posts pursuant to Jharkhand’s advertisement. The advertisement reproduced the qualification language of Rule 2.1.3: “a degree in Food Technology or … Microbiology or Master Degree in Chemistry or degree in medicine from a recognized University.” Appellants duly disclosed postgraduate qualifications and were accepted into the process; after successful written performance they were shortlisted for interview.

At the interview stage the recruiting authority disqualified them on the ground that the advertisement contemplated only a graduate degree in those subjects and that the explicit Master’s reference pertained solely to Chemistry. The appellants approached the High Court by writ; Single Judge dismissed the petition.

On intra-court appeal, the Division Bench again upheld disqualification. In those proceedings UGC initially filed a counter-affirmation that degree includes Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate; subsequently it qualified its stance to say the degree must be previously approved by Central Government.

The Central Government later issued the Food Safety and Standards (First Amendment) Rules, 2022 to clarify eligibility as Bachelor’s or Master’s or Doctorate degree in the listed subjects. Appellants sought Supreme Court relief to be allowed to appear at the interview stage or to be accommodated in future recruitment; remedies sought included reinstatement and seniority/dates of appointment and related benefits.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the term degree in Rule 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules and in the recruitment advertisement can be limited to Bachelor’s degree exclusively for listed subjects other than Chemistry?
ii. Whether a candidate possessing a higher degree (Master’s/Doctorate) in a prescribed subject can be disqualified for not holding an undergraduate degree specifically?
iii. Whether the State authority could, in the recruitment process, adopt a restrictive construction inconsistent with the statutory scheme where the Central Government prescribes qualifications?
iv. What remedial directions are appropriate where candidates were disqualified at interview for holding postgraduate degrees?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the advertisement’s use of the word degree must be read in light of Section 22(3) of the UGC Act which defines degree to include Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees, and therefore a Master’s held in a listed subject is a valid qualification.

They argued that Sections 37 and 91 of the FSS Act vest prescription of qualifications in the Central Government, and the State’s restrictive reading amounted to arbitrary discrimination and usurpation of rule-making competence. Reliance was placed upon the 2022 amendment to the FSS Rules which confirms that Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctorate degrees qualify, and upon the precedent in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry to contend that possessing a higher degree cannot found disqualification.

They further contended appellants disclosed credentials honestly, were permitted to progress in selection, and equity requires reinstatement to the interview stage or creation of supernumerary posts if vacancies are exhausted.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that the advertisement deliberately specified Master’s degree only in respect of Chemistry and thereby implicitly limited the term degree in respect of other subjects to the undergraduate level. They argued applicants participated without challenging the advertised qualification and that the recruiting authority lawfully enforced the specific eligibility criteria it had announced.

The respondents maintained that the High Court rightly interpreted the advertisement’s plain language and that the appellants could not expand the scope to include Master’s qualifications contrary to the recruitment stipulation.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, s.37 (appointment and qualifications of FSO).
ii. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, s.91 (rule-making power of Central Government; s.94 for State rules).
iii. Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011, Rule 2.1.3 (qualifications for Food Safety Officer).
iv. University Grants Commission Act, 1956, s.22(3) (definition of degree).
v. Food Safety and Standards (First Amendment) Rules, 2022 (clarification on Bachelor’s/Master’s/Doctorate).

I) JUDGEMENT

The Court framed the interpretive question: does degree include postgraduate degrees in the listed subjects unless expressly excluded? The Court observed the statutory architecture s.37 and s.91 vest qualification prescription with the Central Government; State rules are subordinate and limited. Rule 2.1.3 of FSS 2011 Rules, which formed the basis of the advertisement, uses the phrase “a degree in or Master’s Degree in Chemistry”.

Applying Section 22(3) UGC Act and the golden rule of interpretation, the Court held that the ordinary and statutory meaning of degree includes Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees unless there is explicit exclusion. The special mention of Master’s degree in Chemistry was interpreted as prescribing a higher minimum for Chemistry, not as excluding higher degrees in other listed subjects.

The Court found the recruiting authority’s restrictive reading arbitrary and inconsistent with both statutory definition and later legislative clarification in the 2022 amendment. Relying on precedent (Parvaiz Ahmad Parry) the Court held that possession of a higher degree in the prescribed subject cannot be ground for disqualification.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders, directed that appellants be allowed to participate from the stage they were ousted (interview stage), and provided remedial measures: if vacancies in the 2016 process are exhausted, supernumerary posts must be created; successful appellants to be appointed effective from the date of first select list but placed below the last selected candidate to protect existing appointees’ seniority; no back wages but notional service benefits would be available.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that statutory or rule-based use of the word degree must be read in light of the statutory definition in UGC Act s.22(3) which includes Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees. Consequently, where a recruitment rule or advertisement simply prescribes a degree in specified subjects, postgraduate and doctoral qualifications in those subjects fall within the ambit unless there is an explicit textual exclusion.

The Court emphasized the golden rule of interpretation, admonishing against a restrictive construction that yields arbitrary exclusion of higher qualifications. The allocation of rule-making competence to the Central Government (s.91) reinforced that the uniform national understanding of degree must govern state recruitments adopting central rules.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that the UGC’s later clarification that degrees need prior Central approval does not alter the statutory definition; administrative nuances about recognition/approval do not permit disqualification purely on account of higher qualification.

The Court also noted the fairness dimension: candidates who disclosed postgraduate qualifications and advanced in merit should not be penalized mid-process by a novel restrictive reading. The remarks underline administrative due process and legitimate expectation: once applications are accepted and candidates progressed, arbitrary exclusion is impermissible.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Where a statute or rule uses the term degree without qualification, it should be read to include Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees as per UGC Act s.22(3) unless expressly excluded.
ii. Recruiting authorities should adopt plain and unambiguous language in advertisements to avoid interpretive disputes; if a lower or higher minimum is intended it must be expressly stated.
iii. If candidates are disqualified during a selection process on grounds not raised at application stage, recruiting agencies must consider reinstatement or appropriate compensatory measures to prevent injustice.
iv. Where selection lists are finalized and appointments made, any later successful claim should protect existing appointees’ seniority; remedial appointments may be supernumerary to avoid displacement.
v. Administrative authorities must ensure conformity with Central rules when State proceedings adopt central standards under concurrent legislative competence.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Court’s decision restores a textually and purposively correct interpretation: degree is a generic term encompassing higher degrees unless excluded, and recruiting authorities cannot construe central-model rules restrictively to disqualify more qualified candidates.

The judgment balances statutory construction, administrative fairness and protection of incumbents’ seniority through pragmatic remedial directions (supernumerary posts; placement below last selected candidate; notional benefits).

The ruling reinforces two institutional lessons: first, clarity in recruitment notifications is essential to prevent litigation and inadvertent injustice; second, when central legislation prescribes qualifications, State bodies adopting those prescriptions must follow their true scope.

The decision also underscores that legislative amendments (as with the 2022 Rules) which clarify purpose may be persuasive in construing earlier ambiguous language; here they reinforced the Court’s interpretation.

Practically, the judgment vindicates qualified candidates and curbs an exclusionary administrative practice that penalized higher qualifications. It also exemplifies judicial restraint and remedial creativity by fashioning fair directions without disturbing already appointed persons. For future recruitments, the judgment promotes clarity and uniformity in interpreting educational qualifications across jurisdictions.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, (2015) 17 SCC 709.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (ss.37, 91, 94).
ii. Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011, Rule 2.1.3.
iii. University Grants Commission Act, 1956, s.22(3).
iv. Food Safety and Standards (First Amendment) Rules, 2022.