Essential qualification under recruitment rules controls appointment; later equivalence cannot cure defect, and cancellation without hearing stood.

A candidate who lacked the essential training qualification prescribed by statutory recruitment rules could not claim a valid appointment, and later recognition of equivalence did not cure the defect. Administrative instructions or advertisements could not override the statutory qualification requirements, so the appointment remained contrary to the rules. Cancellation issued shortly after appointment without prior notice or hearing was not vitiated because the action was non-punitive, carried no stigma, and no real prejudice was shown. The challenge therefore failed, and the cancellation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of the appellants' appointment without prior notice or hearing was invalid for breach of natural justice; (ii) whether the appellants' appointment could be sustained despite their lack of the requisite training qualification under the recruitment rules and the later recognition of equivalence of Moallim-e-Urdu to B.T.C.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of the appellants' appointment without prior notice or hearing was invalid for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The governing principle is that natural justice is not required where the admitted facts leave no real scope for a different result and no prejudice is shown. The appellants were found not to possess the prescribed training qualification on the date of appointment. The cancellation was issued shortly after appointment and the order itself permitted verification of the certificates, so the action was not punitive and did not attach stigma.

Conclusion: The cancellation was not vitiated for want of notice or hearing, and no prejudice was caused to the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants' appointment could be sustained despite their lack of the requisite training qualification under the recruitment rules and the later recognition of equivalence of Moallim-e-Urdu to B.T.C.

Analysis: Recruitment had to conform to the statutory rules, and administrative instructions or advertisements could not override the prescribed qualifications. The appellants did not hold the required training qualification when appointed, and equivalence granted at a later stage could not cure the defect. An appointment made without fulfilment of the essential qualification is contrary to the rules and cannot be continued as of right.

Conclusion: The appointment was invalid as being contrary to the recruitment rules, and the later equivalence did not the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appellants' challenge was upheld because the appointments were made without the minimum qualification required by the statutory rules and the cancellation did not violate natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a candidate lacks an essential qualification prescribed by statutory recruitment rules on the date of appointment, the appointment is voidable and may be cancelled without prior hearing if no real prejudice is shown and the action is not punitive.

---