https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184046 The SC held that experience in Epigraphy cannot be considered equivalent to field experience in Archaeology for recruitment to Superintending Archaeologist posts. The Court distinguished between Archaeology and Epigraphy as separate disciplines, noting that while Archaeology may broadly include Epigraphy, essential qualifications must be construed differently under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The fourth respondent lacked requisite qualifications and was ineligible. The Court rejected equality arguments based on Article 14, stating the equality clause cannot apply to cases of illegality. The HC judgment was set aside and appeals allowed. en-us Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 18:42:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184046 The SC held that experience in Epigraphy cannot be considered equivalent to field experience in Archaeology for recruitment to Superintending Archaeologist posts. The Court distinguished between Archaeology and Epigraphy as separate disciplines, noting that while Archaeology may broadly include Epigraphy, essential qualifications must be construed differently under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The fourth respondent lacked requisite qualifications and was ineligible. The Court rejected equality arguments based on Article 14, stating the equality clause cannot apply to cases of illegality. The HC judgment was set aside and appeals allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184046