Summary
The Supreme Court held the mid-process relaxation of qualifications for Himachal Pradesh Junior Office Assistant recruitment legally unsustainable because it was not advertised with an opportunity for similarly placed candidates to apply. It set aside directions to redraw the Post Code 556 list and segregate vacancies from Post Code 817. Appointments already made under Post Code 447 were exceptionally protected on the stated circumstances; later vacancies required fresh recruitment.
Issues
- Whether essential qualifications could be relaxed after the application deadline without publicity and a fresh opportunity to compete.
- Whether allegedly higher qualifications automatically met the advertised requirements.
- What relief was appropriate for the three recruitment exercises and existing appointees.
Provisions considered
- Rules 7 and 18, Himachal Pradesh Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology), Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014The prescribed diploma was essential. Even assuming relaxation power, it could not be exercised midstream without reservation, publicity and an equal opportunity for affected candidates to apply. (¶¶ 3(A), 24–38)
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaUnpublicised relaxation after the deadline deprived similarly situated persons of equal opportunity and was legally unsustainable. (¶¶ 24–34, 45(i))
- Essential qualifications for direct recruitment, Himachal Pradesh Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology), Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2020Post Code 817 recruitment was to proceed under the extant 2020 Rules without segregating seats carried forward from the earlier exercise. (¶¶ 3(W), 39–40, 45(ii))
Held
- Candidates ordinarily must possess the prescribed qualifications by the specified cutoff. A relaxation power in the rules does not justify unadvertised alteration after the deadline without publicity and an opportunity for others benefiting from the change to compete. (¶¶ 24–27, 32–34)
- This exercise extended recognition to private-institute courses without a demonstrated empirical foundation or compliance with any applicable statutory recognition procedure; it was not merely a technical equivalence determination. The lack of publicity and equal opportunity was decisive. (¶ 28–34)
- The specified diploma remained an essential qualification despite the written and typing tests. Neither the rules nor advertisement authorised substitution merely because another qualification was described as higher. (¶ 35–38)
- An employer cannot be compelled to fill every advertised vacancy under old rules, and inclusion in a merit list creates no indefeasible appointment right. The directions to reopen Post Code 556 and segregate seats from Post Code 817 were set aside. (¶¶ 39–40, 45(ii))
- Existing Post Code 447 appointments were protected in view of the tests passed, long service, absence of specific nepotism allegations, nature of the work and uncertainty about individual challenges and service of notice. This did not validate the relaxation itself. (¶ 41–45)
- The unsuccessful appellants could not be adjusted against vacancies arising after the advertised appointments; those vacancies required fresh advertisement under the extant rules. (¶ 44)
Result
Appeals disposed of without costs. Relaxation held unsustainable for Post Codes 447 and 556; directions to redraw the 556 list and segregate 817 seats set aside, as were appointments made by taking aid of those directions. Existing 447 appointments protected; 817 recruitment to follow the 2020 Rules. Pending applications disposed of.