Case Name: HIMAKSHI V. RAHUL VERMA & ORS. 

Petition Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5942 OF 2023 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5943 OF 2023

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 391 

Date of Judgement: 20.04.2026

Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court, in the present case, examined a recruitment dispute wherein it addressed the question of whether a candidate who doesn’t meet the mandatory essential criteria, but has superior qualifications should still be considered for appointment. The case was concerned with the appointment of a Computer Hardware Engineer with the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. The judgement traverses through principles followed in public employment, underscoring the distinction between essential and superior qualifications. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education invited applications for the post of Computer Hardware Engineer on a contractual basis. Candidates, including both the parties applied for the post. Both candidates undisputedly possessed a B.Tech degree as per the requirements. The Appellant Himakshi, however, had one year experience of work while participating in the recruitment process whereas the Respondent Rahul had six years of work experience in different organizations. A written test and interview was conducted out of which the Appellant was calculated to have the highest score. A notification dated 03.10.2016 declared the Appellant as the selected candidate. The Appellant was working in a Government School at the time of appointment. 

This appointment was challenged by the Respondent before Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, and prayed for direction for appointing him instead. The matter was transferred to the High Court. A Single Judge Bench of the High Court set aside the appointment of the Appellant and granted the same to the Respondent. Interestly, on a review petition filed by the Appellant, the Single Judge Bench reversed the order, restored the writ petition and upheld the appointment order. Pertinently, the Appellant continued in the appointed post amidst the proceedings. The Respondent appealed against the judgement before a Division Bench. However, the Division Bench set aside the appointment of the Appellant and found no merit to appoint the Respondent either. Hence, the appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court. 

ISSUES

1. Whether a candidate who has superior qualifications but does not have the essential experience mandated in the criteria, should still be appointed by way of higher qualification or by relaxation of eligibility criteria?
2. Whether relaxation can be exercised in favour of a candidate not possessing essential qualifications but superior qualifications? 

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that even if the Appellant was to be excluded, the Respondent shouldn’t be appointed as he was not entitled to the position considering merits. Moreover, the Counsel contended that Rule 18 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R&P) provided for relaxation based on discretion where a candidate is otherwise found suitable. Referring to the present case, the Counsel further contended that the Appellant scored the highest in the recruitment process and was found meritorious by the Board. The Appellant was serving in the post since 2019 which amounts to long continuance in service. Hence, it was submitted that the appointment should not be interfered with further.

The Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant did not possess the essential experience qualification for the post which mandated five years of experience and that a Master’s degree cannot supersede the essential qualification required. Even if the R&P Rules permitted relaxation, no material was produced on record to prove that it was mentioned in the advertisements or that the Board had actually exercised its power in favour of the Appellant. In the absence of a recorded exercise of power, the Counsel contended that the Appellant’s appointment could not be sustained. The Counsel for the Board informed that no express formal decisions were taken with regard to specific examination of the Appellant’s work experience or a grant of any relaxation. 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

At the outset, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the advertisement released by the Board clearly stipulated a minimum of five years of experience in a reputed organization engaged in computer manufacturing or maintenance, which was not discretionary or flexible but mandatory. The word ‘minimum’ assumes utmost significance in this context. It indicates that the five year experience is a primary mandatory requirement whereas the higher superior qualifications only become an added advantage which cannot override the essential requirement. 

The Court drew a cohesive distinction between desirable and superior qualifications. Paragraph 23 reads, “It indicates that the requirement of experience is a threshold condition which must be fulfilled by all candidates seeking consideration. Such a condition cannot be diluted or substituted merely on the basis of comparative merit or superior academic qualifications.”

The Court noting Rule 7(2) of the R&P Rules wherein it was stated that preference shall be given to Candidates holding an M-tech in Electronic degree, clarified that preference shall be given only if a candidate is eligible. The Rule does not intend to enlarge and modify the eligibility criteria itself. In other words, the candidate has to meet the essential qualification first to be considered for the preferences. The Court reasoned that to consider the higher degree for appointment in absence of work experience would result in amendment of the aforementioned rules. So, the same cannot be extended to the candidate when the basic eligibility criteria has not been met.  

The Court referred to Paragraph 26 in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404 and held that higher qualification cannot replace a mandatory essential qualification. Noting the fact that the Board did not place anything on record in writing, a specific instance indicating exercise of relaxation as per Rule 18 in favour of the Appellant and that the Appellant possessed only one year of work experience, the Court unequivocally stated that the Appellant has not met the threshold criteria for appointment.

The Court referred to Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and Ors.  1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, wherein the Court had laid down the guidelines for recruitment in public employment. Para 11 (c) says: “When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes the minimum required qualifications, unless it is specifically stated in the advertisement/notification both that the qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on which they will be relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal.”

The Court underscored that transparency and adherence assume significance in a public selection process and therefore, in the presence, it ought to have been recorded as it warrants the demonstration of the discretion reasoned. 

CONCLUSION

The Court therefore concluded that the defect in the present case was not merely procedural, but addressed the fundamental question of eligibility of the post in dispute. Noting the fact that neither of the Candidates had experience in the stipulated field of computer manufacturing/maintenance and that ineligible candidates were permitted to participate in the recruitment process, the Court found no merit in appointing either of the parties and directed the Board to conduct a fresh recruitment process for appointment to the post. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.