Higher qualification no substitute for experience, rules SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that holding a higher academic qualification cannot substitute mandatory experience requirements in recruitment, setting aside a selection made by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education for the post of computer hardware engineer.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and A S Chandurkar found fault with the selection process, observing that a candidate who did not meet the essential eligibility criteria was treated as qualified on the basis of a higher degree and merit position.

“The mere possession of such a higher academic degree does not, by itself, render a candidate ‘otherwise eligible or well qualified’ without meeting the requirement of experience within the meaning of the Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules, particularly when the basic eligibility criteria itself remains unfulfilled,” the bench said.

The court added that allowing such a practice would effectively replace minimum eligibility criteria with preferential qualifications, which is not permissible under the rules.

Examining the record, the bench noted that the selected candidate had only about one year of work experience at the time of applying, as reflected in the application and supporting documents. The required minimum experience under the rules was five years.

It held that possession of an MTech degree in Electronics and Communication, categorized as a preferential qualification, could not be used to establish eligibility or justify relaxation of essential criteria.

The bench said the selection demonstrated a clear non-application of mind regarding the distinction between essential and preferential qualifications, rendering any relaxation fundamentally flawed.

“In matters of public employment, the court must be circumspect in issuing positive directions for appointment unless the entitlement is clear, unambiguous, and flows directly from the applicable rules. Where the selection process itself is found to be flawed, the appropriate course would ordinarily be to set aside the selection rather than to direct the appointment of a particular candidate,” the apex court said.

The court emphasized that the issue in this case went to the root of eligibility and was not merely procedural.

“The selected candidate, i.e., the appellant did not fulfil the essential qualification of ‘at least five years’ work experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance’ as on the relevant date. Such experience is of a specialized nature and external to the post in question, which couldn’t have been acquired by a candidate after serving as a Computer Hardware Engineer,” it said.

The court concluded that any selection made in violation of the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules would be inherently illegal and cannot be sustained through equitable considerations or judicial discretion and therefore set aside the appointment.