Summary
The Supreme Court upheld rejection of a candidate for Hindi Language Assistant because he lacked a B.Ed with Hindi as a teaching method. A degree with Hindi as the major subject and a general B.Ed did not satisfy the distinct requirements prescribed for that post. The specific Hindi qualification prevailed over the general language-assistant provision. The tribunal and High Court had erred in granting relief by applying the general requirements.
Issues
- Whether a Hindi graduate holding a B.Ed without Hindi as a teaching method met the post-specific eligibility requirements.
Held
- The recruitment rules prescribed a separate and stricter category for Hindi Language Assistant: a bachelor’s degree with Hindi as a major subject and an education degree with Hindi as a teaching method. The general requirements governing other language assistants could not displace those specific conditions, whose validity was not challenged. (¶¶ 3, 5, 10)
- Where a special provision governs a matter, that matter is excluded from the general provision. Applying only the general qualification would defeat the specifically prescribed Hindi requirements. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The candidate admittedly lacked Hindi as a B.Ed teaching method. His candidature was therefore properly rejected despite his Hindi major and performance in selection; the tribunal and High Court erred in directing consideration. (¶¶ 4, 9, 13, 14)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; relief granted to the candidate by the tribunal and High Court reversed. Rejection for failure to meet the specific qualification upheld. No costs.