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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1656

J.K. Maheshwari, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ
Himakshi – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Verma – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5942 OF 2023|CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5943 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.S. Patwalia
For the Respondents: M.C. Dhingra, Varinder Kumar Sharma

Essential qualifications for public employment are mandatory and cannot be substituted by higher academic degrees. The power of relaxation must be a conscious, documented, and reasoned exercise of discretion. Equitable considerations cannot validate appointments that violate fundamental eligibility criteria prescribed by recruitment rules.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Essential qualifications - Requirement of prior work experience - Whether higher academic qualification can substitute for essential experience - Held, no. Essential qualifications are threshold conditions that must be fulfilled by all candidates; higher academic qualifications, while providing a preference, cannot override or supplant the primary requirement of essential eligibility. (Paras 23, 24, 25)

(B) Service Law - Power of relaxation - Exercise of discretion - Requirement of recording reasons - Held, the power to relax eligibility criteria is a discretionary power that must be exercised consciously, transparently, and supported by written reasons. It cannot be presumed in the absence of a documented record. (Paras 30, 34, 37)

(C) Service Law - Equitable considerations - Whether long service can cure lack of essential eligibility - Held, equity cannot override mandatory eligibility criteria or validate an appointment that is fundamentally flawed due to the absence of essential qualifications. Equitable relief is discretionary and not a matter of right. (Paras 47, 48, 49)

Facts of the case:
A recruitment process for a technical post required a specific degree and five years of relevant work experience. The selected candidate possessed the required degree and a higher academic qualification but lacked the mandatory work experience. No formal record of relaxation of the experience criteria existed. The selection was challenged on the grounds of ineligibility, and the matter reached the court after conflicting decisions in the lower forums.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the essential qualification of work experience was a substantive threshold condition. A higher academic qualification, while providing a preference, could not substitute for the mandatory experience. The power to relax eligibility criteria was not exercised in a transparent or documented manner, rendering the selection process flawed.

Issues: Whether a candidate lacking essential work experience can be selected based on higher academic qualifications; whether the power of relaxation can be exercised without recorded reasons; and whether equitable considerations can validate an appointment made in violation of essential eligibility criteria.

Ratio Decidendi: Essential qualifications are mandatory and cannot be diluted by higher academic degrees. The power of relaxation is a discretionary power that must be exercised consciously and supported by written reasons. Equitable considerations cannot be invoked to override statutory eligibility requirements or to validate appointments that are fundamentally flawed due to lack of essential qualifications.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding recruitment eligibility and high court proceedings. (Para 1)

J U D G M E N T J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. The present appeals relate to recruitment to the post of Computer Hardware Engineer by respondent no. 2 – Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education (hereinafter “the Board”). The Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by controversy centres around the prescribed qualifications for NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2026.04.20 Reason:

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.

2. These appeals emanate from the common impugned judgement dated 23.04.2021 (hereinafter “Impugned Judgement”) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (hereinafter “High Court”), whereby the judgement of the Single Judge of the High Court was set aside. The Division Bench held that neither the appellant Himakshi (hereinafter “selected candidate”) nor the respondent no. 1 – Rahul (hereinafter “unsuccessful candidate”) satisfied the essential qualifications at the time of recruitment and appointment.

3. At its core, the question involved is whether a candidate who did not possess the 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 the eligibility conditions.

4. Civil Appeal No. 5942 of 2023 has been preferred by the selected candidate Himakshi, assailing the impugned judgement to the extent it sets aside her appointment, challenge to which was rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court. Civil Appeal No.

5943 of 2023 has been preferred by the unsuccessful candidate, Rahul, challenging the same judgement insofar as it rejects his prayer for appointment and consequential relief, despite invalidating the selection process to the post in question. Since there is a commonality of facts and legal issues, both appeals are being dealt with by this common judgement. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in Civil Appeal No. 5942 of 2023.

Factual Matrix

5. The Board initiated a recruitment process vide Advertisement No. 3001-3010 dated 21.07.2016 inviting applications for various categories of posts on contract basis, including one unreserved post of Computer Hardware Engineer on contract basis. The qualification for selection was prescribed as follows: –

“Essential Qualification (1) Should have passed 10+2 examination or its equivalent from a recognised Board/University.

(2) B.E/B.Tech in Electronic telecommunication/I.T. from a recognised University with at least 5 years’ experience in computer manufacturing/ maintenance from a company of repute.

(3) Preference will be given to candidate with M.Tech in Electronic Degree.

Desirable Qualification (4) Knowledge of customs, manner and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh.”

6. Pursuant to the advertisement, various candidates, including the parties herein, applied for the said post. The written test was conducted on 28.08.2016, followed by a personal interview on 03.10.2016. Insofar as the qualifications of the candidates are concerned, it is not in dispute that all three candidates – appellant Himakshi, respondent no. 1 Rahul and respondent no. 3 Gaurav – possessed a B.Tech degree from a recognised University in the relevant field. Himakshi also held an M.Tech degree; however, at the time of participating in the recruitment process, she had work experience of only about one year. Gaurav possessed a Diploma in Computer Engineering and had accumulated a combined work experience of approximately two and a half years across different organizations. Rahul possessed a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications and had work experience of approximately six years across multiple organ

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