Courts Can't Read 'Equivalent Qualification' Into Recruitment Advertisement After Selection Process Begins: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a recruitment advertisement is the “charter of the selection process” and courts cannot enlarge the eligibility criteria by recognising equivalent qualifications not contemplated in the notification. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 630]
Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while upholding the National Seeds Corporation's (NSC) decision to reject the candidature of a hearing-impaired Scheduled Caste candidate for the post of Senior Trainee (Marketing).
The Court said that permitting qualifications not specified in the advertisement after the recruitment process has commenced would be unfair to candidates who did not apply because their qualifications were not recognised.
“A recruitment notice is the charter of the selection process. It informs prospective candidates across the country who are eligible to apply. If, after the selection process has commenced, the eligibility criteria are enlarged by accepting qualifications not contemplated in the advertisement, it would prejudice those candidates who, reading the advertisement as it stood, did not apply because their qualifications were not recognised,” the Court said.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Bhagat Prashant Haribhau, who challenged NSC's refusal to permit him to participate further in the recruitment process.
Haribhau possessed a B.Sc. (Agricultural Business Management) degree and an MBA (Agriculture). He argued that his bachelor's degree was substantially equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture), which was the qualification prescribed in the advertisement.
He contended that NSC had adopted an unduly technical approach by rejecting his candidature solely because of the nomenclature of the degree despite him having qualified the written examination and being called for document verification.
On the other hand, NSC argued that the advertisement specifically prescribed B.Sc. (Agriculture) and did not recognise any equivalent qualification.
It was submitted that determining equivalence fell within the employer's domain and accepting Haribhau's plea would amount to altering the eligibility criteria midway through the recruitment process.
Accepting NSC's submissions, the Court held that the advertisement did not contain the words “or equivalent” and thus, the Court could not read those words into it.
“The Court cannot read the words 'or equivalent' into the advertisement when the employer chose not to include them. That would not amount to interpretation; it would be rewriting the advertisement's terms,” the judge said.
The Court said that equivalence of qualifications cannot ordinarily be determined merely by comparing course titles or identifying overlapping subjects. It added that the determination involves an assessment of academic standards, course content, duration, practical exposure, institutional objectives, and the suitability of a qualification for the post in question.
It also observed that the recruitment in the present case was an all-India process and that if equivalence recognised by different States or certified by different Universities is permitted to enlarge the notified eligibility conditions after the advertisement, the recruitment would cease to be governed by a uniform standard.
“Candidates from different States may then rely upon different equivalence regimes, resulting in the application of varying eligibility criteria to the same recruitment. Such a course may be permissible where the employer itself incorporates equivalence in the advertisement or otherwise recognises it under the governing recruitment framework. In the absence of any such recognition, the recruitment must proceed strictly in accordance with the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement,” the Court said. It said that in matters of public employment, fairness is owed not only to the candidate before the Court but equally to those who chose not to apply because the advertisement did not recognise their qualifications.
“The discipline of public recruitment requires the Court to hold the employer to the criteria it notified, rather than reconstruct those criteria after the selection process has commenced,” Justice Narula observed.
Title: BHAGAT PRASHANT HARIBHAU v. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 630