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

The SC held that eligibility criteria must be fulfilled by the application deadline unless the advertisement reserves power to relax qualifications later. Post-deadline relaxation of essential eligibility qualifications without wide publicity and extended application period violates Articles 14 and 16. The court rejected treating unrecognized institution qualifications as equivalent to prescribed ones and confirmed that possession of specified diploma from recognized institution remains essential. Employers cannot be forced to fill all advertised vacancies under old rules and may withdraw advertisements to issue fresh ones under amended rules. The HC's directions to re-cast merit lists and fill remaining posts using relaxed criteria were set aside.

---

---

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 Relaxation
The 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 Qualifications
The 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 Institutions
The 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 Consultation
Rule 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 Qualification
The 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 Qualifications
The 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 Vacancies
The 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.

---