NET in Sanskrit Not Enough: Rajasthan HC Holds UGC NET Must Be in Specific Subject for Sanskrit Assistant Professor Posts

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed petitions by candidates holding NET or SET in Sanskrit, ruling that subject-specific qualification in Vyakaran, Sahitya, or Samanya Sanskrit is mandatory under the Rules of 2022.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, on 15 July 2026 dismissed a batch of civil writ petitions filed by candidates who held NET or SET qualification in Sanskrit but not in the specific sub-disciplines — Vyakaran, Sahitya, or Samanya Sanskrit — required by the State's recruitment advertisement dated 12 January 2024. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, sitting singly, held that the right to prescribe educational qualifications for a particular post vests exclusively with the employer, and that courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct an employer to accept a qualification different from what is statutorily prescribed. The petitioners' argument that their broader Sanskrit NET should be treated as equivalent to the subject-specific NET was rejected as legally untenable.

The Recruitment and the Petitioners' Grievance

The Department of Sanskrit Education, Government of Rajasthan, through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, initiated recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor (Vyakaran), Assistant Professor (Sahitya), and Assistant Professor (Samanya Sanskrit) vide advertisement dated 12 January 2024. The advertisement prescribed eligibility under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 2022 (the Rules of 2022). Candidates were required to hold an Acharya degree with 55% marks in the concerned or relevant subject and to have cleared the National Eligibility Test or SET in the subject concerned.

The petitioners — Vinod Kumar Sharma, Shankar Lal Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Jat, Dharmendra Kumar Bunkar, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Dinesh Choudhary, Sanjay Kumar, Shriprakash Pandey, Rakesh Kumar, Sushila Devi, and others — held NET or SET in Sanskrit. None held NET or SET specifically in Vyakaran, Sahitya, or Samanya Sanskrit. They approached the court contending that the respondents were wrongly declining to treat their Sanskrit NET or SET as a requisite qualification for these posts.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the candidates had studied Vyakaran, Sahitya, and Samanya Sanskrit and had comprehensive knowledge of those subjects. They pointed out that some of them had even been engaged as guest faculty by the Department of Sanskrit Education to teach these very subjects, which, they submitted, demonstrated that the department itself had accepted their competence.

The Legal Issue: Can a Court Expand Prescribed Eligibility?

The central question before Justice Meena was whether a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction can direct an employer to accept a qualification not prescribed in the recruitment rules or advertisement, on the ground that the qualification held by a candidate is broadly related or equivalent.

The State opposed the petitions squarely on the ground that prescribing minimum qualifications for a post is the exclusive prerogative of the employer. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners simply did not possess NET or SET in the relevant subject as required by the advertisement and the Rules of 2022.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Meena began by affirming what he described as a basic principle of service jurisprudence: the right to prescribe educational qualifications for recruitment to a post is vested with the employer, who is best placed to assess the duties and work to be performed by the appointee.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman, U.P.S.C. & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 254), which held that a statutory authority is entitled to frame rules prescribing qualifications essential for a post, and that “superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post.”

Justice Meena also drew on a Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Vishnu Bawaree v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1613/2018, decided on 26 July 2021). In that case, the Division Bench had held that it is not within the domain of a court to read something into a statutorily prescribed qualification, to expand it, or to prescribe a different qualification on the basis of possible intendment. The Division Bench had gone further, observing that even a candidate possessing a higher qualification cannot always claim to satisfy the requirement of a lower eligibility qualification prescribed for a post, given the specific functions to be discharged.

Turning to the facts, the court noted that the qualification clause in the advertisement for the Assistant Professor posts in Vyakaran, Sahitya, and Samanya Sanskrit expressly required NET in the subject concerned, conducted by the UGC, or a similar test such as SLET or SET. The advertisement further made clear that SLET or SET cleared from other states after 1 June 2002 would not be considered valid for these posts. These conditions were in consonance with the Rules of 2022.

On the guest faculty argument, the court was direct. It observed that the advertisement dated 3 September 2025 for engagement of guest faculty under the Vidhya Sambal Yojana itself required candidates to possess the qualifications prescribed under the Rules of 2022 for the particular subject. If the department had engaged candidates without the requisite subject-specific NET or SET, the court held, such appointments were contrary to law and could not form the basis for a claim to participate in regular recruitment.

Counsel for the petitioners cited the Supreme Court's recent decision in Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2712), where the apex court had found that a candidate possessed the requisite academic qualification when reasonably construed in the context of the advertisement and surrounding circumstances. Justice Meena distinguished the case. In the matter before him, the advertisement and the Rules of 2022 prescribed specific qualifications for specific subjects. There was no ambiguity in the eligibility conditions that required contextual construction.

The court also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Nandan Mishra v. University of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 6320/2012, decided on 12 May 2015). In that case, the Delhi High Court had observed that the subject of Sanskrit and Sanskrit Traditional Subjects (which include Vyakaran, Sahitya, and related disciplines) are treated as separate subjects under the UGC NET scheme, assigned different subject codes. The judgment had reiterated that courts should be reluctant to intervene in academic matters, which are for experts, and should not substitute their views on whether a subject is relevant for a post.

Applying these precedents, Justice Meena concluded that since the Rules of 2022 and the advertisement dated 12 January 2024 provided for specific qualifications for specific subjects, “the Court cannot divert from the prescribed qualifications.” The petitioners, not holding NET or SET in Vyakaran, Sahitya, or Samanya Sanskrit as specifically required, did not deserve to be permitted to participate in the recruitment process.

Outcome

Justice Ganesh Ram Meena found no merit in any of the writ petitions. All civil writ petitions — S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4248/2026, 4251/2026, 4304/2026, 5711/2026, 7360/2026, 7552/2026, and 9437/2026, along with connected matters — were dismissed by a common order dated 15 July 2026. All stay applications and pending applications in these matters were also disposed of. The court directed that a copy of the order be placed in all connected matters.