The Supreme Court has held that marks secured in the written examination cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, reiterating that comparative merit can be considered only among candidates who first satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The Court further held that recognition of an educational qualification by an educational board does not, by itself, make it equivalent to the specific qualification prescribed under Recruitment Rules.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the appointment of a candidate as Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the Government of Goa, who held a Secondary School Certificate (10th standard) obtained through the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), which was recognised by the Goa Education Board as equivalent to possessing a 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education. However, the Recruitment Rules required a candidate to have "passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education” and do not treat NIOS 10th Standard as a requirement for the post.

“…it can be said that the Recruitment Rules prescribe a specific academic qualification and that the words “under 10+2 system of education” form an integral part thereof. In the absence of any provision under the Rules treating the NIOS Secondary School Certificate as satisfying the said requirement, such qualification cannot be treated as fulfilling the essential academic qualification prescribed for the post in question.”, the Court said.

The respondent had secured 96 marks in the written examination, two marks more than the appellant. However, during document verification, the Departmental Selection Committee found that he did not possess the prescribed academic qualification, while finding the appellant eligible.

The High Court subsequently relied upon the recognition of the NIOS qualification and directed the authorities to consider the respondent for appointment, following which an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi held that the words “under 10+2 system of education” formed an integral part of the prescribed qualification and could not be ignored.

“The question, therefore, is not whether the Secondary School Certificate issued by NIOS is a recognised qualification in general. The question is whether such qualification satisfies the specific eligibility condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post in question.”, the Court asked.

The Court reiterated that qualifications must be satisfied in the manner prescribed by the recruiting authority and that judicial review cannot be used to add to, alter or expand essential eligibility conditions.

Mere Attaining Higher Marks Doesn't Cure Ineligibility

The Court further rejected the argument based on the respondent's higher marks, holding that comparative merit becomes relevant only after a candidate satisfies the prescribed eligibility criteria.

“We also cannot accept that the higher marks secured by Respondent No. 3 can have any bearing on the issue of eligibility. Comparative merit can be considered only amongst candidates who satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions. The marks secured in the written examination cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules.”, the Court said.

“…we are of the view that the High Court has committed a grave error in allowing Writ Petition No. 272 of 2023 and in directing the authorities to treat Respondent No. 3 as eligible for the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2024 cannot be sustained in law.”, the Court held.

As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shivan Dessai, Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Thorat, Adv. Ms. Tahira Menezes, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Moulishree Pathak, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Rana, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Sr. Adv. M/s Kajal Dalal, AOR Ms. Swati Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle, AOR Ms. Pushkara A. Bhonsle, Adv. Mrs. Sneha S. Bhonsle, Adv. Mr. Sanmitra Y. Pol, Adv. Ms. Shruti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Brahamjyot Singh, Adv.