The Supreme Court has held that an Essential Recruitment Qualification cannot be replaced by higher marks in a written examination. A candidate must first satisfy every mandatory eligibility condition under the Recruitment Rules. Only then can the recruiting authority compare merit among eligible candidates.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered the ruling. It set aside an order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
The High Court had directed the appointment of a candidate as Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the Plumber trade. The post came under the Directorate of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of Goa.
Specific Recruitment Rules Must Be Satisfied
Justice Vipul M. Pancholi authored the judgment. The Court distinguished general recognition of a qualification from compliance with a specific Recruitment Rule.
The applicable rules required candidates to have “passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education.”
Respondent No. 3 had obtained a Secondary School Certificate through the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). However, the Recruitment Rules contained no provision treating that certificate as equivalent to the prescribed requirement.
The Court therefore focused on whether the NIOS qualification met the specific eligibility condition. General recognition of the certificate alone could not establish eligibility for the post.
Recruitment Advertisement and Eligibility Conditions
The Directorate of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of Goa, issued the recruitment advertisement on November 5, 2021.
It invited applications for the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the Plumber trade.
The essential qualifications included passing the 10th standard under the 10+2 system. Candidates also needed a National Trade Certificate or National Apprenticeship Certificate in the relevant trade. In addition, they required at least five years of practical industrial experience.
Higher Marks Did Not Establish Eligibility
The written examination took place on November 9, 2022. Respondent No. 3 secured 96 marks. Appellant Santosh B. Naik obtained 94 marks.
However, the Departmental Selection Committee examined the candidates’ documents separately. It found that Respondent No. 3 had completed the 10th standard through NIOS open schooling.
According to the Committee, this did not satisfy the specific 10+2 system requirement. It therefore declared Respondent No. 3 ineligible.
The authorities subsequently issued an appointment offer to Santosh B. Naik.
Bombay High Court at Goa Allowed Challenge
Respondent No. 3 challenged his disqualification through Writ Petition No. 272 of 2023.
On January 11, 2024, the High Court allowed his petition. It relied on the Goa Education Board’s general recognition of NIOS certificates.
The High Court directed the authorities to consider Respondent No. 3 for appointment based on his higher examination marks. Santosh B. Naik then challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Explains Limits of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s ruling. It held that courts exercising judicial review cannot add to or expand eligibility requirements prescribed by an employer.
The recruiting authority must determine whether a qualification satisfies its operational requirements. Courts cannot substitute a different eligibility standard when the Recruitment Rules clearly prescribe one.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument based on comparative marks. Merit becomes relevant only after a candidate establishes eligibility.
Therefore, higher marks cannot cure the absence of an Essential Recruitment Qualification prescribed by statutory rules.
Supreme Court Restores Appellant’s Appointment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order dated January 11, 2024. It also quashed the subsequent appointment of Respondent No. 3 made pursuant to that order.
The Court restored the selection and appointment of appellant Santosh B. Naik.
The ruling reiterates that candidates must independently satisfy mandatory recruitment conditions. Comparative performance in an examination cannot overcome a failure to meet a prescribed eligibility requirement.
