LI Network
Published on: November 16, 2023 at 15:36 IST
The Supreme Court emphasized that eligibility criteria for a post, as outlined in the Rules, cannot be relaxed unless explicitly allowed in the Rules or advertisements for the position. Furthermore, any relaxation granted must be extensively publicized to be considered valid.
The case revolved around the recruitment for the Junior Office Assistant (JOA) position under the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
The bench, comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Manoj Misra, addressed appeals challenging a High Court judgment that upheld the State Government’s relaxation of essential eligibility qualifications for JOA post the application deadline set by the Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules).
The High Court assumed the original rules to be unclear and ambiguous, validating the State Government’s relaxation order in recruitment.
The outcome of the High Court’s decision meant that initially deemed ineligible candidates were now considered eligible, leading to a revision of the merit list. This also resulted in candidates lower in merit, but eligible under the original Rules, being removed from the list.
The key issues brought before the Supreme Court included:
- Whether essential eligibility qualifications could be relaxed after the application deadline.
- Whether candidates with qualifications different from those prescribed could be considered eligible.
- Whether the State could be compelled to fill all advertised vacancies and be restrained from following amended/new Rules.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier rulings, stating that unless specified otherwise in the rules or advertisements, candidates must meet eligibility criteria by the application deadline. It emphasized that if the rules allow relaxation, it must be exercised only if reserved in the advertisement. Additionally, any such relaxation must be widely publicized.
Regarding the second issue, the Court clarified that there was no provision to consider qualifications other than those specified as higher or equivalent. Candidates unable to demonstrate the prescribed essential qualifications had their claims rejected.
The Court acknowledged that employers cannot be compelled to fill all vacancies under old rules, allowing them to issue fresh advertisements in line with new or amended rules. However, considering the period during which appointments were made and other factors, the Court decided not to disturb previously made appointments, even if aided by the relaxation order.
Case Title: Ankita Thakur & Ors v The HP Staff Selection Commission | Civil Appeal No 7602 of 2023