2026 Supreme(SC) 423

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Himakshi – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Verma & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5942 of 2023
With
Rahul Verma – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5943 of 2023
Decided On : 20-04-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment – Qualifications – There is clear distinction in essential and desirable qualifications – While higher educational qualification may confer additional advantage of preference in matter of selection, it does not supplant or override primary requirement of essential eligibility.
(2) Where selection process itself is found to be flawed, appropriate course would ordinarily be to set aside selection rather than to direct appointment of a particular candidate.
(3) Equity – Grant of relief on equitable considerations is not a matter of right – Exercise of such jurisdiction is discretionary and is invoked only in exceptional circumstances when facts so warrant.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment – Qualifications – There is clear distinction in essential and desirable qualifications – While higher educational qualification may confer additional advantage of preference in matter of selection, it does not supplant or override primary requirement of essential eligibility – To hold otherwise would amount to rewriting terms of selection and altering criteria after process had commenced – Preference operates only within zone of eligible and merit candidates; it does not enlarge or modify field of eligibility itself – Where a candidate does not meet threshold requirement of eligibility, question of extending preference, being in merit, on account of higher qualification does not arise – Preference may, at best, be exercised in a situation where two or more candidates, otherwise eligible and similarly placed in terms of merit, stand at par – Terms of recruitment rules and advertisement form basis of selection process and are binding on both, candidates as well as recruiting agencies – Any departure therefrom, unless expressly permitted and properly exercised, would be arbitrary and violative of principles of selection. (Paras 23, 24 and 27)

(B) Service Law – Appointment – Qualifications – Relaxation – Absence of any decision exercising power of relaxation in favour of selected candidate (Appellant) assumes greater significance, especially in context of a public selection process, where transparency and adherence to declared criteria are of paramount importance – If such relaxation were to be granted, it ought to have been reflected in record in clear terms – While detailed reasons are not required for awarding marks or selecting a candidate, same principle cannot be extended to exercise of a statutory power of relaxation – Latter involves departure from prescribed eligibility conditions and necessarily requires conscious, reasoned and demonstrable exercise of discretion – In absence of any material evidencing such exercise of, it cannot be presumed that requirement of minimum five years’ experience stood waived – Acceptance of such contention would effectively render eligibility criteria nugatory and confer unguided discretion upon recruiting agency, which is impermissible in law – In matters of public employment, Court must be circumspect in issuing positive directions for appointment unless entitlement is clear, unambiguous, and flows directly from applicable rules – Where selection process itself is found to be flawed, appropriate course would ordinarily be to set aside selection rather than to direct appointment of a particular candidate. [Rules 7 and 18 of Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the Post of Computer Hardware Engineer in the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala] (Paras 36, 37 and 54)

(C) Equity – Grant of relief on equitable considerations is not a matter of right – Exercise of such jurisdiction is discretionary and is invoked only in exceptional circumstances when facts so warrant – Where basic eligibility criteria itself remains unfulfilled, no claim of equity can arise in favour of one candidate, in particular, when some other candidate allegedly possessing qualification and also claiming appointment to said post succeeded in Writ Appellate Court – To extend such consideration in face of a clear breach of essential qualifications would amount to placing equity above Rules, which is impermissible – Supreme Court may, in appropriate cases, having regard to long period of service, in absence of any fault on part of incumbent, and on equities that may have crystallised over time; mould relief so as to do complete justice – However, such exercise of discretion is necessarily conditioned by facts of each case and cannot be invoked to dilute or override essential eligibility requirements forming basis of selection process. (Paras 46 and 47)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals relate to recruitment to the post of Computer Hardware Engineer by respondent no. 2 – Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. The controversy centres around prescribed qualifications for appointment to the said post, particularly the requirement of prior work experience and the preference, if any, to a higher qualification, such as a Master’s degree.

At its core, question involved is whether a candidate who did not possess required work experience at the time of recruitment could still be selected and appointed, either on the basis of having a preferred higher qualification or by exercising supposed relaxation of eligibility conditions.

Findings of Court:

This Court finds no infirmity in impugned judgement of Division Bench of High Court, and accordingly, same is upheld. On considering nature of defect in eligibility, passage of time, and the fact that appellant has continued in service for a considerable period, no useful purpose would be served in directing a fresh process of selection at this stage with the same candidate. However, respondent no. 2 – Board is at liberty to issue a fresh advertisement for selection to post in question and do the needful strictly in accordance with the R&P Rules. As such, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, no direction for appointment in favour of respondent no. 1 – Rahul or any other candidate can be issued.

Result : Appeals dismissed.