SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 337

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ., BIPIN GUPTA, J.
Narendra Saini, S/o. Bharat Singh Saini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Transport – Respondent 
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.256 of 2023 Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 228 of 2023 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 230 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 236 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 242 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 244 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 247 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 251 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 257 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 258 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 273 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 281 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 286 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 292 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 322 of 2023 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 382 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 450 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 463 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 469 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 532 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 927 of 2023 
Decided On : 21-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Utkarsh Dubey Mr. Akshit Gupta with Ms. Pragya Seth, Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal & Mr. Nakul Bansal, Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG with Mr. Divanshu Gupta, AGC, Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, AAAG, Mr. Anshuman Singh, Mr. Tanishq A. Parmar, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar & Mr. Indo Rathore, Mr. Atul Bhardwaj, Mr. Shivang Khandelwal on behalf of Dr. T.N. Sharma, Mr. Devendra Sharma on behalf of Mr. Bal Ram Vashisth, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Iliyas Khan, Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with Mr. Himanshu Kala, Mr. Movil Jeenwal & Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Mr. Himanshu Jain with Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari, Ms. Apoorva Agarwal, Mr. Yashraj Kumawat & Mr. Avinash Bhardwaj, Mr. Anoop Pareek with Mr. Kshitiz Sharma & Mr. Pranav Pareek, Mr. N.C. Sharma.
For the Respondents:Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, Mr. Rachit Sharma, Mr. Madhav Dadhich, Mr. Keshav Parashar, Mr. Moin Khan & Mr. Ashish Kabra, Mr. Sunil Samdaria with Mr. Arihant Samdaria, Mr. M.F. Baig with Mr. Govind Gupta, Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Nalin G. Narain with Mr. Manish Bhardwaj & Mr. Devranjan Singh Shekhawat.

Unless statutory rules expressly designate a qualification as a minimum requirement or allow for the inclusion of higher degrees, candidates holding higher academic credentials are not eligible for positions requiring a specific diploma. Additionally, the criteria for public employment cannot be altered after the recruitment process has officially begun.

Headnote:(A) Service Rules - Recruitment - Eligibility criteria - Whether candidates possessing higher academic qualifications contrary to the specific requirements of statutory rules are eligible - Absent the term "minimum qualification" in the rules, the scope of qualifying as per the syllabus cannot be expanded to include higher academic degrees - Judicial review must refrain from expanding the ambit of prescribed qualifications - State as employer is empowered to determine the eligibility threshold for public service. (Paras 26, 30, 31)

(B) Recruitment Process - Change of rules - Mid-stream alteration of eligibility conditions - Illegal to alter the established game rules once the process of selection is underway - Administrative orders cannot supersede the statutory regulations governing the appointment process. (Paras 14.4, 33)

Facts of the case:
The selection process for a technical position was initiated based on specific educational requirements, namely a diploma in a particular engineering discipline. A post-advertisement order attempted to permit candidates with higher academic degrees to participate. This was challenged, asserting that such inclusion violated the established service rules and introduced new conditions after the process had commenced.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the rules, which prescribed specific diploma-based qualifications without the mention of a "minimum," did not support the inclusion of higher academic degrees. The court emphasized that the recruiting authority and the legislature intended for a specific skill set, and judicial intervention cannot unilaterally broaden these set standards. Furthermore, it was concluded that the governing rules were binding and could not be interpreted in a way that contradicted their clear language.

Issues: Whether candidates possessing higher academic qualifications are eligible for positions where only specific technical diploma qualifications are prescribed by the statutory rules, and whether the modification of eligibility criteria after the selection process commenced was legally permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of a provision allowing higher qualifications to substitute for lower ones or the inclusion of the word "minimum" in the qualification rule, specific diplomas are mandatory. It was established that courts should not expand the scope of eligibility defined by statutory authority, as the prescription of qualifications is a matter of policy, and changing the criteria midway for an ongoing recruitment process is impermissible.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual background and statutory requirements for the recruitment of motor vehicle sub-inspector. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. parties' contentions regarding eligibility of degree holders vs. diploma holders under existing statutory rules. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. judicial interpretation of statutory qualifications and limits of judicial review in expanding eligibility. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
4. prohibition on changing the rules of the game midway through a selection process. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
5. final order dismissing the appeals and directing the state to proceed with the recruitment process. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ.)

1. These D.B. Special Appeals are filed challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he allowed a bunch of writ petitions on 22.02.2023 and held as under:-

"54. As a result, the instant writ petitions are hereby allowed. The impugned office order dated 15.12.2021 issued by the RSSB is quashed. Respondent-RSSB is directed to prepare the final result on merit for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector, pursuant to advertisement dated 24.11.2021, excluding degree holders in automobile/mechanical engineering and the appointment be given by the State as per merit list in accordance with law.

It is made clear that candidate(s) participated in the present recruitment process, possessing degree in automobile/mechanical engineering, if has/have already undergone to the diploma course and had acquired qualification of diploma in automobile/mechanical engineering, as per the prescribed norms of qualification in the advertisement dated 24.11.2021, shall be considered on merits. No costs."

Facts:-

2. The facts of the case are that an Advertisement was issued on 24.11.2021 by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'RSSB') inviting applications for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. An office order was issued thereafter on 15.12.2021 by the RSSB enabling the candidates possessing higher qualification than the requisite qualification to apply and to be treated as eligible to participate in the selection process. So far as the Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector post is concerned, the same is to be filed in terms of the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963') which provides as under:-

3. Thus, a candidate as per Clause 7, of the Advertisement which was similar to the aforesaid Schedule, was required to possess Class 10th qualification and three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering/ Automobile Engineering Course from Government of India or State Government or any qualification either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the Central Government or State Government. The candidate was further required to have one year experience in reputed Automobile Workshop for petrol and diesel engine of Light/ Heavy Vehicle and repairing. He was further required to possess a Driving License of Motorcycle, Heavy Vehicle License and Passenger Vehicle License as issued from competent authority. The level of examination was mentioned to be that of Secondary/ Technical Diploma.

4. The writ petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 15.12.2021 issued by the RSSB, whereby, it allowed candidates having higher academic qualifications than the three year mechanical engineering/ automobile engineering diploma to participate in the selection. During the pendency of writ petition, the result was declared.

5. The Department of Personnel (hereinafter referred to as 'DOP') gave its opinion that persons possessing higher qualification are eligible for recruitment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. Vide order dated 03.08.2022, the same was therefore, also challenged by the writ petitioners by amending the writ petitions.

6. The a



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top