Candidates Lacking Prescribed Qualification Cannot Claim Eligibility On Basis Of 'Equivalent' Or Higher Qualification: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging rejection of candidature for various posts advertised by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, reiterating that a Selecting Body cannot treat any qualification as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the absence of an enabling provision in the applicable rules or the advertisement.

Reiterating principles established in various precedents, the High Court observed that prescription of qualifications is a matter of recruitment policy and that questions relating to equivalence of qualifications fall outside the domain of judicial review. Importantly, it held that where the rules and advertisement prescribe a particular qualification, candidates not possessing that qualification cannot be considered eligible merely because they claim to possess a higher or equivalent qualification.  

Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari was dealing with six writ petitions filed by candidates whose candidature for the posts including Investigator-cum-Computer Assistant Statistical Officer and Assistant Research Officer was rejected during document verification.  

The cases arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission through an advertisement issued in February 2024. Besides the prescribed educational qualifications, the advertisement required candidates to possess either an 'O' Level Diploma in Computers or a One Year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application from a recognized University or Institution.

Although the petitioners figured in the provisional merit list or were otherwise considered during the selection process, their candidature was rejected at the stage of document verification on the ground that they did not possess the qualification prescribed in the advertisement.  

The petitioners contended that the certificates and diplomas possessed by them, including qualifications such as ADSE (Shikhar Project) and Advanced Diploma in Information Technology, were either equivalent to or of a higher standard than the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement.

In one of the petitions, it was also contended that the curriculum of the course pursued by the petitioner was the same as that of the One Year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application prescribed in the advertisement, and that the duration of the said course was 15 months, thereby raking it at a higher academic threshold than the required qualification.

Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench judgment relating to a qualification issued by Aptech Computer Education and on claims that similarly qualified candidates had been appointed in the past.  

The Public Service Commission contended that the petitioners did not possess the qualifications specifically prescribed by the advertisement. It was submitted that some petitioners possessed only certificates and not diplomas, while others possessed qualifications in different streams or branches.

The Commission further argued that neither the applicable rules nor the advertisement contained any provision permitting consideration of equivalent qualifications. In such circumstances, the Selecting Body had no authority to treat any other qualification as sufficient for appointment. It was also submitted that questions regarding equivalence or relative superiority of qualifications could not be determined by the Court.  

The Court accepted the stand of the Selecting Body and observed that “the Selecting Body is bound by applicable rules or the conditions of eligibility mentioned in the advertisement. As per the advertisement, qualification required is 'O' level Diploma in Computers or One Year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application. Since the advertisement is silent regarding equivalent qualification, therefore, Selecting Body could not have considered any qualification other than those mentioned in the advertisement. Other qualification declared as equivalent can be considered only when there is a provision to that effect in the rules or the advertisement.”.

Relying upon Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das, the Court reiterated that it is for the employer to determine the relevancy and suitability of qualifications and not for the courts to assess the same. Referring to Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, the Court further observed that courts cannot rewrite eligibility conditions contained in an advertisement or sit in judgment over clear recruitment criteria and that questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review.

The Court also relied upon Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and State of Punjab v. Anita wherein it was held that prescription of qualifications is a matter of recruitment policy and that a candidate cannot claim eligibility merely because he or she possesses a qualification asserted to be higher than the one prescribed.

“Law is well settled that a candidate who do not possess the qualification prescribed in the Rules, cannot be considered for appointment. The question of equivalence can be examined by the Selecting Body only when the Rules contain a provision that a qualification which is treated as equivalent to the mentioned qualification would be treated as sufficient for appointment. Since the rules and the advertisement are absolutely silent on the said aspect, therefore, Selecting Body could not have treated petitioners as eligible, when they do not possess the qualification required by the rules”, it held.

The Court refused to engage with the petitioners' contention over the question of other candidates who had been wrongly appointed using the same qualifications. Accordingly, the writ petitions were all dismissed with no costs.

Case: Sadhana Versus State of Uttarakhand and another (Writ Petition No. 1692 of 2025 (SS)) with

Neha Khetwal Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Writ Petition No. 1321 of 2025 (SS)) with

Mahima Rana Versus State of Uttarakhand ( Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2025 (SS) with

Ajeet Rawat and another Versus State of Uttarakhand and another (WP. NO. 1345 of 2025(SS)) with

Vikram Jeet Singh Versus State of Uttarakhand and another (WP No.1418 of 2025 (SS)) with

Akshay Kumar Versus State of Uttarakhand (WP. No. 1427 of 2025 (SS))

Click Here To Read/Download Order