Statutory educational qualifications for public appointments are mandatory; equivalence under proviso requires prior, objective, reasoned decision on contemporaneous record, absent which appointment is invalid and ultra vires.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These three writ petitions, namely WPSB No. 710 of 2024, WPPIL No. 70 of 2025 and WPSB No. 295 of 2025, arise out of a common issue relating to the appointment of respondent no.3 to the post of Managing Director of a State Corporation governed by the Selection and Appointment of Managing Directors & Directors in the Three Corporations Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2021”).

2. Since the core issue involved in all three petitions is substantially identical, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; the Rules, 2021 were framed by the State Government to regulate the selection and appointment of Managing Directors and Directors in three specified State Corporations. The Rules prescribe eligibility conditions, educational qualifications, experience requirements and procedural safeguards for appointment.

4. By amendment dated 28.05.2021, the Rules were modified, inter alia, to prescribe specific educational qualifications for the post of Managing Director. Under Rule 9 and Rule 9 A, as amended, certain technical and professional qualifications, including possession of an Engineering Degree, were made part of the eligibility framework.

5. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued by the State Government inviting applications for the post of Managing Director of the concerned corporation. The advertisement reflected the qualifications as provided under the amended Rules.

6. Respondent no.3 applied pursuant to the advertisement. After the selection process, respondent no.3 came to be appointed as Managing Director by order of the State Government.

7. WPSB No. 710 of 2024 was filed challenging the legality of the appointment primarily on the ground that respondent no.3 did not fulfil the mandatory educational qualification prescribed under Rule 9A of the Rules, 2021.

8. During the course of proceedings, this Court called upon the State Government to clarify whether any decision regarding “equivalence” in terms of the proviso to Rule 9A(4) had been taken prior to the appointment of respondent no.3, and if so, to place the same on record.

9. The Public Interest Litigation also questions whether the power of exemption or equivalence under the proviso to Rule 9A(4) can be exercised in an unguided manner, and whether such discretion must be circumscribed by objective standards.

10. WPSB No. 295 of 2025 was filed by another petitioner asserting individual grievance, contending that the appointment of respondent no.3 is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the express mandate of the Rules, 2021.

11. In response to the writ petitions, the State Government filed its counter-affidavit asserting that the appointment of respondent no.3 was made in accordanc