Courts Ordinarily Can’t Add To Or Alter Essential Qualifications Prescribed Under Recruitment Rules While Exercising Judicial Review: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal directed against the judgment directing the authorities to consider the case of a candidate for the recruitment to the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber.
While restoring the temporary appointment of an aggrieved litigant to the post of Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber, the Supreme Court has reiterated that Courts, while exercising judicial review, ordinarily cannot add to or alter the essential qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court directing the concerned authorities to consider the case of the third Respondent for recruitment to the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber, in light of the marks secured by him in the written examination.
The Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi explained, “It is well-settled that the qualifications prescribed by the recruiting authority for a particular post are required to be satisfied in the manner in which they have been prescribed. The Court, while exercising judicial review, ordinarily cannot add to or alter the essential qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. The question as to whether a qualification possessed by a candidate is equivalent to the qualification prescribed is ordinarily within the domain of the employer or the competent expert body.”
Advocate Shivan Dessai represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Shirin Khajuria represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Directorate of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of Goa (second respondent) issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber. The Recruitment Rules governing the said post had been notified vide Official Gazette (Recruitment Rules). The Appellant and the third respondent applied for the said post under the unreserved category. The third respondent secured 96 marks, whereas the Appellant secured 94 marks.
The Departmental Selection Committee considered the eligibility of the candidates upon verification of their documents. The Committee found that the third Respondent did not possess the essential academic qualification of having passed 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education and, consequently, found him ineligible under the Recruitment Rules. The Appellant was offered the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the third Respondent preferred a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court contending that he possessed the requisite academic qualification by virtue of having passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling wherein he had cleared the subjects of English, Home Science, Science, Economics and Hindi.
The High Court directed the Respondent-authorities to consider the Respondent for recruitment to the post in question in light of the marks obtained by him. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that the Recruitment Rules prescribed, apart from the academic qualification, a National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in the relevant trade and practical experience in the industry. As per the Bench, the qualifications prescribed under the Rules were part of the eligibility framework for a technical teaching post and had to be considered in that context.
The Bench noted 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”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that the Departmental Selection Committee, upon verification of the documents, rightly found the third Respondent not eligible for the post on account of non-fulfilment of the prescribed academic qualification. “The said decision was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, did not warrant interference by the High Court”, it held.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the appointment of the third Respondent and restored the Appellant's temporary appointment.
Cause Title: Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1089)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Shivan Dessai, AOR Salvador Santosh Rebello, Advocates Aishwarya Thorat, Tahira Menezes, Raghav Sharma, Sneha Bhargava, Devesh Khandelwal, Ankit Rana
Respondent: Senior Advocate Shirin Khajuria, AOR Kajal Dalal, Advocates Swati Sharma, AOR Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle