Equivalence Of Qualification For Eligibility Of Employment To Be Decided By Employer, Not Courts: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the question of equivalence of qualification for eligibility and employment is to be decided by the employer and the same cannot be interpreted by the Courts to treat any qualification to be equivalent to qualifications.

The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that

“the question of equivalence of qualification in the matter of examining the eligibility for the purpose of employment, is to be decided by the employer and the Courts cannot treat any qualification to be equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in the Rules and mentioned in the advertisement.”

Case Background

The U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission had issued an advertisement for making an appointment on posts including Instructors in sewing technology, among others, with various qualifications prescribed.

Appellant, possessing a three years' Diploma certificate in Textile technology granted by the U.P. Technical Education Board, and also a National Craft Instructor Certificate by the National Council for Vocational Training applied for the post. The application was rejected due to the appellant not possessing the requisite qualifications as prescribed.

In a representation, the appellant contended that his degree in Cutting and Sewing trade was equivalent to a Diploma in Costume Design and Dress Making. This order was rejected by the Commission and challenged in writ.

The Writ Court held that the appellant does not possess any of the qualifications mentioned in Column 4 of the advertisement, as a Diploma in Textile Technology was not mentioned therein. It was further held that the certificate by the National Council for Vocational Training was not a recognized qualification under the relevant rules.

Thereafter, a review was filed by the appellant on the ground that Textile Technology and Costume Design & Dress Making are equivalent under the major discipline 'Textile Engineering' as per the Secretary, U.P. Technical Education Board. Said review was rejected on grounds that this was nothing but the Secretary's interpretation, and it was not said that it was equivalent. Appellant assailed the order in the intra-court appeal.

Special Appeal Verdict

The Court referred to District Collector and Chairman Vijayanagaram Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, wherein the Supreme Court held that in case of an appointment made in disregard of qualifications prescribed, it is an aggravation for all those who possessed similar or better qualifications, but didn't apply because the advertisement did not mention the same. Such appointment amounted to fraud played on the public. Unless explicitly stated, qualifications cannot be relaxed, held the Supreme Court.

In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, the Supreme Court held that prescription of qualifications is a matter of policy. It was held that the State being the employer is entitled to list conditions for recruitment as it sees fit. It is not within the ambit of judicial review to expand upon qualifications so prescribed. Equally, equivalence of a qualification could not either be decided in judicial review, which was only for the State to determine, held the Court.

In Zahoor Ahmad, it was further held that exigencies of administration fall within administrative decision making. The State, while prescribing qualifications, may keep in mind various factors which comprise suitability for a vocation, which is what leads to prescription of certain qualifications, held the Apex Court.

The High Court observed that out of all the qualifications prescribed in Column 4 of the advertisement, none were held by the appellant. There was no clause of equivalence for a Diploma. It was held that if the appellant's claim was allowed, similarly situated persons who did not apply would suffer.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision of the Writ Court, and dismissed the special appeal.

Case Title: Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 10 of 2025]

Citation:  2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38

Click Here To Read/Download Order