Three-Year BPE Degree Treated As Equivalent To One-Year B.P.Ed For Physical Training Instructor; Rejection Based On Short-Form Nomenclature A Misnomer: Rajasthan High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that candidates who completed a three-year Bachelor of Physical Education degree are to be treated at par with those holding the one-year B.P.Ed. qualification and are eligible for appointment as Physical Training Instructor Grade III. The Court stated that the abbreviation “B.P.E” merely denotes the three-year course structure and does not create any distinction from B.P.Ed, which is of lesser duration, especially in view of the recognition granted by the teacher education regulator. Allowing the appeals of such candidates against the State and the selection board, the Court directed that their candidature be considered on merits with consequential, primarily notional, service benefits within a stipulated period.
The appeals arise from the challenge to the refusal of consideration for appointment to the post of PTI Grade-III under an advertisement requiring the qualification of B.P.Ed. recognised by NCTE or equivalent certificates such as D.P.Ed. or C.P.Ed. The appellants possessed a three-year Bachelor of Physical Education degree from various universities, and contended that this course, referred to as “B.P.E.”, constituted the same qualification as B.P.Ed. The judgment records that the learned Single Judge had relied on an earlier decision which distinguished the three-year B.P.E. course from the one-year B.P.Ed. course, leading to denial of consideration.
The appellants argued that their degrees were Bachelor of Physical Education degrees and only referred to as B.P.E. to denote duration rather than a different qualification. The NCTE, on being impleaded, submitted a specific reply clarifying recognition of the three-year Bachelor of Physical Education as a professional qualification equivalent to B.P.Ed. and confirming eligibility for PTI appointments. The dispute therefore centred on whether the short form “B.P.E.” could be treated as distinct from B.P.Ed., and whether non-consideration on that basis was justified within the framework of the recruitment advertisement.
The Court recorded that the controversy in all connected appeals was identical and proceeded to decide them by a common order. It noted that the appellants had been denied consideration for appointment because the advertisement mentioned B.P.Ed., and the learned Single Judge had relied on earlier precedent treating B.P.E. differently. The Division Bench examined the contentions and the reply of NCTE in detail.
The Court referred to the statement filed by NCTE, quoting: “the NCTE granted recognition/permission to Physical Education Programme Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) three years degree course and NCTE also clarified that it is also professional qualification and person who have opt this education is eligible to be appointed on the post of PTI Teacher and NCTE has also clarified that Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) is equivalent to Bachelor of Physical Education (BPEd).”
It further recorded that “a person who has qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) Three Year Degree Course is eligible to be appointed on the post of P.T.I. Teacher.” The Court then observed that the short form “B.P.E.” appearing in the degrees was merely indicative of the course being of three years’ duration and “in no other way that it can be said to be different from BPEd which is only of one year.” It stated that “a course which is of lesser duration cannot be said to be lesser qualification than that of a course of one year.”
The Court also observed that distinguishing candidates by short-form nomenclature was “a misnomer and an attempt to deprive the more meritorious candidates from appointment.” The judicial reasoning consistently relied on the explicit clarification issued by NCTE, the duration and nature of the respective courses, and the fact that the essential qualification was Bachelor of Physical Education, which the appellants possessed.
The Court directed that “candidature of the appellant shall be considered on merits and if the appellant is found suitable as per the terms of the advertisement, she would be given benefit of consideration for appointment from the date persons lessor to her in the merit having been so appointed with all consequential benefits.”
It clarified that “the benefits will have to be treated as notional but her seniority and her pay fixation notionally shall be done from the date the other persons have been so granted. The actual benefits shall be granted to the appellants-petitioners from the date when the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions.” The special appeals stand allowed and that implementation of the order be completed within two months.
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Soni, Adv.; Mr. R.D. Meena, Adv.; Mr. Hemant Kumar Singh, Adv.; Mr. Harshvardhan Meena, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Adv. with Mr. Jai Upadhayay, Adv. & Mr. Parth Khandal, Adv.; Mr. S.M. Sharma, AAAG; Mr. Naman Maheshwari, AGC; Mr. Vishwas Fatehpuria, Adv.; Mr. Nalin G. Narain, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shreya Khandal, Adv. for Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal, Adv.
Case Title: Bimala Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:48304-DB
Case Number: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.152/2023 (with connected appeals)
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Justice Maneesh Sharma
