New Delhi, Apr 20 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday held that mere possession of a higher academic degree does not by itself render a candidate “otherwise eligible or well qualified” without meeting the experience required under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and A S Chandurkar faulted the recruitment process adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education for the post of computer hardware engineer. It said a candidate not fulfilling a basic requirement could not have been treated as eligible merely on the basis of possessing a higher degree or securing a higher rank in merit.
“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.
Any such approach would amount to substituting the minimum qualification with a preferential one, which is impermissible, it said.
The bench found the selection of a candidate not in accordance with norms. The record clearly indicated that the selected candidate, at the time of submission of her application had work experience of only about one year as evident from the application status and supporting documents.
It said in such circumstances, the possession of ‘M.Tech degree in Electronics and Communication’, a preferential qualification under the R&P Rules, could not have been relied upon to either confer eligibility or to justify any relaxation of the essential requirement.
The bench said the selection of the candidate on such a basis, therefore, reflects a clear non-application of mind to the distinction between essential and preferential qualifications and renders any purported 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 appointment of a particular candidate,” the apex court said.
The bench said in the present case, the defect is not merely procedural or incidental, but goes to the root of eligibility itself.
“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 specialised 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 top court said therefore, the selection made, if any, in contravention to the R&P Rules prevalent on the date, would cause inherent illegality which cannot be dispensed with by way of equitable consideration or by exercising discretion of the court.
The top court said the selection and appointment of the candidate cannot be sustained in law. PTI MNL MNL MIN MIN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.