Mere Possession Of Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute Minimum Experience Criteria : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that essential qualifications for an advertised post cannot be compromised merely because the candidate possesses a higher qualification.

A bench of Justices J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by a candidate who had appeared for the post of Computer Hardware Engineer under the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. Although she topped the selection process and possessed an M. Tech degree, she did not meet the mandatory requirement of five years' work experience prescribed for the post; however, she claimed relaxations in work experience under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

Therefore, the issue was whether a candidate who did not possess the required work experience at the time of recruitment could still be selected and appointed, either on the basis of having a preferred higher qualification or by exercising a supposed relaxation of the eligibility conditions.

Answering in the negative, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari upheld the High Court's Division Bench decision denying them relaxation benefits, noting that relaxation cannot be assumed or implied; it must be a conscious, reasoned decision that should be reflected in an advertisement or in a statutory rule.

Reliance was placed on Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404, where it was held that “in absence of a specific statutory rule or a provision in the advertisement, the recruiting agency cannot broaden the eligibility criteria by treating a higher qualification as a replacement for the mandatory 'essential' qualification'”.

In essence, the Court said that when the candidate doesn't possess the required eligibility, mere securing higher place in merit with higher qualification would not grant them a vested right to claim recruitment.

The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that she is entitled to given preference over experienced candidate as she possess higher qualification. Instead, the Court said that “where a candidate does not meet the threshold requirement of eligibility, the question of extending preference, being in merit, on account of higher qualification does not arise.”

“A preference operates only within the zone of eligible and merit candidates; it does not enlarge or modify the field of eligibility itself. In other words, the stage of applying preference arises only after a candidate is found to fulfil the essential qualifications prescribed for the post...Preference may, at best, be exercised in a situation where two or more candidates, otherwise eligible and similarly placed in terms of merit, stand at par. In such event, the candidate possessing M.Tech degree may be accorded preference. However, the same cannot be extended to a candidate who is otherwise ineligible for selection merely on account of possessing desirable qualification prescribed for preference.”, the Court said.

Upholding the rejection of the Appellant's candidature, the Court held:

“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 R&P Rules, particularly when the basic eligibility criteria itself remains unfulfilled. Any such approach would amount to substituting the minimum qualification with a preferential one, which is impermissible. The selection of the appellant on such 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 terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: HIMAKSHI VERSUS RAHUL VERMA & ORS. (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi, Adv. Ms. Prerna Cheema, Adv. Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi, Adv. Ms. Prerna Cheema, Adv. 2 Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR