A recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh has prompted me to reflect on how qualifications are often misunderstood in government recruitment. As someone who has experienced the challenges firsthand, I can empathise with the pain. The Court emphasised that employers should look beyond the title on a degree and instead evaluate what the student studied. This means assessing the curriculum and outcome, rather than dismissing a candidate solely because their degree has a slightly different name. The case report is available here.
This verdict is crucial for the Geospatial Field, as various degrees are offered under different names. At large, Indian universities are increasingly interested in providing more specialised and engaging programs, while foreign universities are looking to establish themselves in India in their own unique ways. Students tend to focus on applied branches of core disciplines. For example, Geography becomes Applied Geography, Biology becomes Biotechnology, and Physics becomes Nuclear Physics. These programs are exciting for students and beneficial for the industry, which values specialised skills. However, when these graduates apply for government jobs, they often encounter a rigid filtering system. If their specific degree title is not listed in the job advertisement, their application may be rejected without any consideration of their actual studies. As a result, we risk losing skilled individuals simply because the title on their certificate does not perfectly match an outdated list.
The Supreme Court has reminded us that a person’s learning is more important than the label on their degree. It provides a fair chance to those who studied relevant subjects, even if the course name differs. This aligns well with the National Education Policy, which promotes interdisciplinary learning and cross-disciplinary mobility.
There are challenges. Scrutinising a syllabus takes time and expertise. Universities do not have uniform course structures. There is also a need to prevent bias and ensure consistency when committees compare curricula. Without clear guidelines, flexible interpretation can become arbitrary, creating new problems.
Disciplines like Geoinformatics are beginning to adopt common templates and curriculum standards. But most fields still lack such national-level frameworks. To make this judgment meaningful, employers may need expert support, better documentation, more apparent justification for decisions, and updated job advertisements that specify required competencies rather than relying on degree titles alone.
The Court has shown that learning deserves recognition beyond the label on a degree. If we build fair and transparent systems around this idea, India can match the right talent with the right roles and let merit speak for itself.