Back
Employer Is Best Judge of Qualifications for Recruitment: Upholds Subject-Specific NET Requirement
The has dismissed a batch of seven filed by candidates who sought to participate in the recruitment process for Assistant Professor positions despite lacking the subject-specific NET or SET qualifications mandated by the applicable rules. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, sitting singly, delivered a decisive ruling reinforcing the settled principle that prescribing educational qualifications is the and falls beyond the scope of under .
The Dispute: General Sanskrit Versus Specialized Subjects
The controversy arose from an advertisement dated , issued by the for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor in various Sanskrit disciplines, including Vyakaran (Grammar), Sahitya (Literature), and Samanya Sanskrit (General Sanskrit). The petitioners—Vinod Kumar Sharma, Shankar Lal Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Jat, Dharmendra Kumar Bunkar, and several others—possessed either NET (Sanskrit) or SET (Sanskrit) qualifications but did not hold NET or SET certificates in the specific, individual subjects for which they had applied.
The recruitment advertisement, framed in consonance with the , explicitly required candidates to hold an Acharya Degree with 55% marks in the "concerned/relevant/allied subject" and to have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) or State Level Eligibility Test (SET) "in subject concerned."
The petitioners contended that having studied Vyakaran, Sahitya, and Samanya Sanskrit as part of their broader Sanskrit education and having cleared NET (Sanskrit), they possessed adequate knowledge and ought not to be treated as ineligible.
Guest Faculty Engagements and the Equality Argument
A significant strand of the petitioners' argument rested on the claim that the had previously engaged individuals holding only NET (Sanskrit) or SET (Sanskrit) as guest faculty to teach the very subjects for which regular recruitment was now underway. The petitioners argued that this prior engagement demonstrated that the department itself considered the broader Sanskrit qualification sufficient.
Justice Meena squarely rejected this line of reasoning, observing that any such guest faculty appointments would themselves be "contrary to the law." The Court noted that even the advertisement dated , for engaging guest faculty under the Vidhya Sambal Yojana required candidates to possess qualifications as prescribed under the 2022 Rules. The Court held unequivocally:
"In case, the respondents have engaged any candidate without having requisite qualification as provided under the Rules, such appointments of guest faculty cannot be made basis for the regular recruitment without holding qualification of NET or SET in that particular concerned subject."
This observation effectively foreclosed any argument that past irregular appointments could create or against the State.
The Employer's Prerogative: A Firmly Settled Principle
The respondents, represented by , , and other Additional Government Counsel, maintained that the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement were strictly in accordance with the 2022 Rules. They argued that the petitioners simply did not meet the eligibility criteria and that the Court could not rewrite those criteria.
The Court placed heavy reliance on the 's decision in
Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman, U.P. S.C. & Ors.
(AIR 2007 SC 254), which held that the statutory authority is entitled to frame rules laying down qualifications essential for holding a particular post and that
"the jurisdiction of the superior courts... would be to interpret the rule and not to supplant or supplement the same."
Further reinforcing this position, the Court drew from a judgment of its own High Court in Vishnu Bawaree v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1613/2018), decided on . That case had categorically stated:
"It is well settled that it is theto prescribe the eligibility qualification for recruitment to any post. It is not within the domain of the Court to read something in the statutory qualification prescribed, which is not there and expand the eligibility qualification prescribed..."
The Court also distinguished the 's recent decision in Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2712), which the petitioners had cited. In that case, the had found the candidate qualified upon a reasonable construction of the advertisement and surrounding circumstances. However, Justice Meena noted that the present case involved specific qualifications unambiguously prescribed under the 2022 Rules, leaving no room for interpretative flexibility.
Academic Expertise: A Domain for Experts, Not Courts
Drawing additional support from the 's decision in Nandan Mishra v. University of Delhi (W.P. (C) 6320/2012), the underscored the reluctance courts must exercise in academic matters. The Nandan Mishra judgment had explicitly recognized that Sanskrit and Sanskrit Traditional Subjects—including Vyakaran, Sahitya, and others—are treated as distinct disciplines even by the for NET purposes, assigned separate subject codes (25 and 73 respectively).
Justice Meena quoted with approval the 's observation in
that
"whether the subject is relevant or not, it is for the University to decide and the courts would not be justified in substituting their views in the matter."
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment crystallizes several important propositions of :
"It is the basic principle ofthat the right of prescribing the educational qualification for recruitment to a particular post vested with the employer. Employer is the best judge to prescribe the requisite qualifications for recruitment to a post considering the duties and the work to be performed by the selected/appointed candidates."
"Since for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor... initiated vide advertisement datedand so also the Rules of 2022 provide for specific qualifications for eligibility for recruitment, the Court cannot divert from the prescribed qualifications."
Decision and Implications
The Court found no merit in any of the and dismissed them all, including the connected stay applications and pending applications. A copy of the order was directed to be placed in all connected matters, including S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9437/2026.
The ruling carries significant implications for public recruitment across Rajasthan and beyond. It reaffirms that candidates must satisfy the exact qualification requirements prescribed in recruitment rules and advertisements—general or overarching qualifications in a broader discipline will not substitute for subject-specific eligibility criteria. The judgment also serves as a stern reminder that prior irregular or illegal appointments, including those of guest faculty, create no legal foundation for relaxing mandatory eligibility norms in regular recruitment.
