Telangana High Court on Auditor’s Termination for Unrecognized Degree: Detailed Analysis

Overview

The Telangana High Court in Deepak Vashisht Vs Union of India examined whether an assessee could continue as an Auditor in the office of the Principal Accountant General when his appointment was founded on a graduation degree obtained from an institution that did not have the necessary recognition from the University Grants Commission (UGC) during the period of study.

The Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which had earlier confirmed the termination of the assessee’s services, and clarified that absence of the prescribed educational qualification is a core eligibility defect that cannot be cured by length of service or interim judicial orders.

This article breaks down the factual background, arguments, legal reasoning, and implications of the decision for appointments in government and public sector posts, particularly where eligibility is tied to recognized academic qualifications.

Factual Background

Appointment to the Post of Auditor

The assessee was selected for the post of Auditor in the office of the Principal Accountant General, pursuant to a regular recruitment process. At the stage of document and certificate verification:

  • The assessee produced a Bachelor of Arts degree issued by Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Rajasthan, a deemed university.
  • Scrutiny by the appointing authority revealed that IASE did not enjoy UGC recognition for the academic session 2008–2011, which was the period during which the assessee had pursued and completed his degree.
  • The record showed that IASE had only provisional institutional recognition for the year 2007–08, and such recognition did not extend to the relevant academic years covering the assessee’s course.

Provisional Appointment Based on Undertaking

In view of doubts over the recognition of the degree:

  1. The assessee submitted a written request seeking provisional appointment, asserting that degrees/diplomas from IASE were recognized by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) for Central Government employment.
  2. He also enclosed a communication obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 purportedly supporting his contention.
  3. Crucially, the assessee expressly undertook that:
    • If verification established that IASE’s courses were not recognized by UGC, the employer would be at liberty to terminate his services.

Based on this request and undertaking:

  • An offer of appointment dated 22.01.2016 was issued.
  • A provisional appointment order dated 08.02.2016 followed, which categorically stipulated:
    • Verification of educational certificates would be undertaken.
    • If the certificates were found not genuine or not recognized, the assessee’s services could be terminated without further notice, and without prejudice to possible action under the Indian Penal Code for submission of false certificates.

Termination and Tribunal Proceedings

Subsequently:

  • Upon completion of verification, the authorities concluded that the degree obtained from IASE for the academic session 2008–2011 lacked UGC recognition.
  • The assessee’s services were terminated via Office Order No. 44 dated 01.06.2016.

The assessee then:

  • Filed O.A. No. 1235/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, challenging the termination.
  • The Tribunal, by order dated 03.07.2025, upheld the termination, holding that the assessee did not possess the essential recognized educational qualification required for the post of Auditor.

Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court.

Petitioner’s Submissions

Before the High Court, the assessee advanced, in substance, the following arguments:

  1. Continuation in Service Under Interim Order
    • After termination, the assessee obtained interim relief from the Tribunal dated 07.05.2016, pursuant to which he continued in service for a substantial period.
    • It was contended that this prolonged service under judicial protection should be taken into account while considering his right to continue in employment.