The Supreme Court of India has held that essential eligibility conditions prescribed in recruitment rules cannot be diluted or substituted by higher academic qualifications.
The bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has ruled that any appointment made in violation of such mandatory criteria is legally unsustainable, even if the candidate is otherwise meritorious or has served for a long period.
The judgment arose from a dispute concerning recruitment to the post of Computer Hardware Engineer by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. The recruitment advertisement required candidates to possess a B.E./B.Tech degree along with a minimum of five years’ work experience in computer manufacturing or maintenance. While preference was to be given to candidates with an M.Tech degree, the experience requirement was clearly prescribed as an essential qualification.
In the selection process, the candidate Himakshi secured the highest marks and was appointed to the post. However, it was undisputed that she had only about one year of work experience at the time of recruitment. Her selection was challenged by another candidate, Rahul Verma, who contended that the appointment was invalid as the essential eligibility condition was not satisfied.
Buy Now: E-Compilation of Supreme Court Judgements – March 2026
The Supreme Court examined whether a candidate lacking the required experience could still be selected on the basis of higher academic qualifications or overall merit. The Court categorically held that essential qualifications operate as a threshold requirement and must be fulfilled as on the relevant date. A preferential qualification such as an M.Tech degree cannot override or substitute the mandatory requirement of experience.
The Court further clarified that the concept of “preference” applies only among candidates who are otherwise eligible. It cannot be used to expand the field of eligibility or justify the selection of a candidate who does not meet the minimum criteria. Accepting such an argument would effectively rewrite the recruitment rules and introduce arbitrariness into the selection process.
On the issue of relaxation, the Court noted that although the recruitment rules permitted relaxation of conditions, such power must be exercised consciously and for valid reasons recorded in writing. In the present case, there was no material on record to show that any relaxation of the experience requirement had been granted by the recruiting authority. The absence of such a decision indicated clear non-application of mind.
The Court also rejected the argument that the appointment should be protected on equitable grounds since the selected candidate had continued in service for several years and had even been regularised. It held that equity cannot override statutory requirements, particularly where the defect goes to the root of eligibility. The lack of the prescribed experience was not a minor irregularity but a fundamental illegality that could not be cured over time.
At the same time, the Court declined to grant relief to the challenging candidate. It observed that the selection process itself was flawed, as the eligibility criteria were not properly scrutinised for any candidate. Therefore, no individual candidate could claim an automatic right to appointment merely because the selected candidate’s appointment was set aside.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and declared the appointment invalid. However, it refrained from directing appointment of any other candidate and instead left it open to the recruiting authority to initiate a fresh selection process in accordance with the rules. The ruling reinforces the principle that adherence to prescribed eligibility conditions is fundamental in public employment and cannot be compromised on grounds of merit or equity.
Case Details
Case Title: Himakshi Versus Rahul Verma & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-901-SC-2026
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5942 OF 2023
Date: 20/04/2026
