2023 (11) TMI 1304 - SC - Indian Laws

Eligibility criteria must be met by application deadline unless advertisement reserves relaxation power

Ankita Thakur and Ors. Versus The H.P. Staff Selection and Ors.

The SC held that eligibility criteria must be fulfilled by the application deadline unless the advertisement reserves power to relax qualifications later. ... Relaxation in the essential eligibility qualifications could be made post the last date fixed for receipt of application from the candidates - essential eligibility qualifications specified in the 2014 Rules - statutory regime in place to accord recognition to an Institution - clarificatory letter/relaxation order is in ignorance of such statutory regime or not - absence of prior consultation with the Commission, the relaxation/clarificatory order could be considered in conformity with the provisions of Rule 18 of the 2014 Rules - requirement for a written and computer typing test prior to selection, possession of one year diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application/Information Technology from a recognised University/Institution by a candidate - eligibility of qualifications other than the one prescribed by the 2014 Rules or the advertisement - State (i.e., the employer) could be forced to fill all vacancies advertised or not. Whether relaxation in the essential eligibility qualifications could be made post the last date fixed for receipt of application from the candidates? - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that eligibility criteria/conditions, unless provided otherwise in the extant Rules or the advertisement, must be fulfilled by the candidate by the last date for receipt of applications specified in the advertisement. In the instant case, it is not shown that the advertisement reserved the power to relax the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the advertisement at any later stage. Rather, the advertisement is specific that eligibility criteria must be fulfilled by an aspiring candidate by the last date fixed for receipt of the application. It is not demonstrated that after the decision to relax the eligibility criteria was taken, the same was widely publicised, and the last date to apply under the advertisement was extended to enable persons benefited by such relaxation to apply and compete. In these circumstances, the power to relax the eligibility criteria, even if it existed, was not exercised in consonance with the settled legal principles and it violated the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the 2014 Rules were ambiguous as to warrant clarification or relaxation with a view to declare certain other qualifications as equivalent to the one specified in the said Rules? - Whether there was a statutory regime in place to accord recognition to an Institution? If yes, whether the clarificatory letter/relaxation order is in ignorance of such statutory regime and is, therefore, invalid? - Whether, in absence of prior consultation with the Commission, the relaxation/clarificatory order could be considered in conformity with the provisions of Rule 18 of the 2014 Rules? - HELD THAT:- If there existed a statutory procedure for granting recognition, an Institution cannot be considered recognized dehors that procedure. No doubt, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in MOHAMMAD SHUJAT ALI VERSUS UOI. [1974 (5) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT], issue of equivalence is a technical issue and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body, the Court should not lightly disturb its decision unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated by mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong. But this is not a case of mere treating degrees or certificates obtained from a recognized Institution/University as equivalent to the one specified, rather it is of granting recognition to certain courses conducted by private institutes, whether recognized or not as per the extant statutory regime. This amounts to changing the eligibility criteria midway because the extant Rules and the advertisement both stipulated that the diploma/specified course had to be from a recognized Institution/University. As there appears nothing on record to indicate that wide publicity of such relaxation in the specified qualifications was made, and opportunity was afforded to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete, considering the manner in which the relaxation was accorded, the same falls foul of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether in view of requirement for a written and computer typing test prior to selection, possession of one year diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application/Information Technology from a recognised University/Institution by a candidate was not an essential eligibility qualification? - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the 2014 Rules and the advertisement would indicate that possession of one year diploma in Computer Science/ Computer Application/ Information Technology from a recognised University/ Institution is an essential qualification which must be possessed by a candidate desirous of appointment on the post concerned. The High Court has also not treated the same as a non-essential qualification. In this view of the matter, the argument that requirement to hold one year diploma in the specified courses was not an essential qualification, is rejected. Whether candidates holding qualifications other than the one prescribed by the 2014 Rules or the advertisement, though allegedly higher, could be considered eligible? - HELD THAT:- There exists no provision in the extant Rules or the advertisement to treat any other qualification as higher or equivalent to the one specified therein, the claim of such candidates, who could not demonstrate that they held the prescribed essential qualifications, is liable to be rejected and has rightly been rejected by the High Court as well. Whether the State (i.e., the employer) could be forced to fill all vacancies advertised? - whether it could be restrained from carrying it forward for filling it as per the amended/new Rules? - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that an employer cannot be forced to fill all the existing vacancies under the old Rules. The employer may, in a given situation, withdraw an advertisement and issue a fresh advertisement in conformity with the new or amended Rules. Even a candidate included in the merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment even if the vacancy exists. The direction(s) contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment of the High Court setting aside the closure of the selection process for Post Code 556 and to re-cast the merit list as well as fill up remaining posts of Post Code 556, with the aid of relaxation/ clarification dated 21.08.2017/ 18.09.2017 read with communication dated 19.03.2018, after segregating it from those advertised as Post Code 817, are set aside. Appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Legality of post-application deadline relaxation in eligibility criteria.2. Ambiguity in essential eligibility qualifications specified in the 2014 Rules.3. Existence and consideration of statutory regime for recognizing institutions.4. Validity of relaxation/clarification order without prior consultation with the Commission.5. Necessity of possessing a diploma as an essential qualification.6. Eligibility of candidates with qualifications other than those prescribed.7. Employer's discretion to fill vacancies under old rules versus new rules.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Legality of Post-Application Deadline RelaxationThe Supreme Court reiterated that eligibility criteria must be fulfilled by the last date for receipt of applications unless otherwise provided in the rules or advertisement. The Court emphasized that any relaxation in the eligibility criteria must be explicitly reserved in the advertisement and widely publicized to allow eligible candidates to apply. In this case, the relaxation order dated 21.08.2017 was issued after the application deadline, without such reservations or publicity, thus violating constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16.Issue 2: Ambiguity in Essential Eligibility QualificationsThe Court examined whether the qualifications specified in the 2014 Rules were ambiguous. The High Court had found ambiguity due to the undefined term 'recognized Institution.' However, the Supreme Court noted the existence of a statutory regime under the Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board Act, 1986, which provided a framework for recognizing institutions. The Court concluded that the relaxation was not justified as the statutory regime was overlooked, and the relaxation order was not based on empirical data.Issue 3: Statutory Regime for Recognizing InstitutionsThe Court highlighted the statutory framework under the 1986 Act, which empowered the Takniki Board to recognize institutions. The relaxation order, which recognized qualifications from private institutions without following this statutory procedure, was deemed invalid. The Court stressed that recognition should adhere to the statutory regime and any changes to eligibility criteria must be widely publicized.Issue 4: Validity of Relaxation Without ConsultationRule 18 of the 2014 Rules required consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for relaxation. The Court found that the relaxation order was issued without such consultation, rendering it non-compliant with the rules. The absence of consultation further invalidated the relaxation order.Issue 5: Necessity of Diploma as Essential QualificationThe Court affirmed that a diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application/Information Technology from a recognized University/Institution was an essential qualification as per the 2014 Rules and the advertisement. The High Court's view that this was not an essential qualification was rejected.Issue 6: Eligibility of Candidates with Other QualificationsThe Court ruled that neither the 2014 Rules nor the advertisement recognized higher or equivalent qualifications as meeting the eligibility criteria. The Court upheld the High Court's rejection of claims by candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualifications, emphasizing that equivalence is a matter for the State to determine.Issue 7: Employer's Discretion on Filling VacanciesThe Court stated that an employer is not obligated to fill all vacancies under old rules and may choose to issue a fresh advertisement under new rules. The Court referenced previous judgments affirming that candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment even if vacancies exist.Conclusion/Directions:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions to re-cast the merit list for Post Code 556 and to fill remaining posts with the aid of the relaxation order. The appointments made under the first advertisement (Post Code 447) based on the relaxation order were not disturbed due to the passage of time and lack of specific challenges to individual qualifications. The Court directed that recruitment for Post Code 817 proceed under the 2020 Rules without segregation of seats. All appeals were disposed of with no costs ordered.