Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education for the post of Computer Hardware Engineer. The essential qualification required a B.E./B.Tech in Electronic telecommunication/I.T. with at least 5 years' experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance from a company of repute, with preference for candidates holding an M.Tech degree. Three candidates applied: (the selected candidate) held a B.Tech and M.Tech but had only about one year of experience; (the unsuccessful candidate) had a B.Tech and six years of experience; Gaurav had a B.Tech and about two and a half years of experience. Appellants scored the highest marks (152), followed by Gaurav (151) and Rahul (143). She was selected and appointed. Rahul challenged her selection before the Tribunal, which was later transferred to the High Court. The Single Judge initially set aside her selection but later, on review, upheld it, relying on Rule 18 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules which confers a power of relaxation. The Division Bench, however, set aside her selection, holding that she did not possess the essential experience and there was no material showing relaxation was exercised. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed Himakshi's appeal and dismissed Rahul's appeal. The Court held that the power of relaxation under Rule 18 was validly exercised, as no candidate fulfilled the experience requirement, and Himakshi was the most meritorious with the highest marks and a higher qualification (M.Tech). The Court noted that the selection was made by a competent committee without mala fides, and the Board had accepted the recommendation. The Court also observed that Rahul, even if Himakshi were excluded, would not automatically be entitled to appointment as he did not fulfill the essential experience either. The Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's order, allowing Himakshi to continue in service.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Essential Qualification - Work Experience - The core issue was whether a candidate lacking the prescribed 5 years' work experience could be selected for the post of Computer Hardware Engineer. The Supreme Court held that where the Recruitment and Promotion Rules confer a power of relaxation, and no candidate fulfills the essential experience requirement, the competent authority may relax the condition in favor of the most meritorious candidate, particularly one with a higher qualification (M.Tech). (Paras 1-3, 18-20) B) Service Law - Power of Relaxation - Rule 18 of R&P Rules - The Court interpreted Rule 18 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the Post of Computer Hardware Engineer, which empowers relaxation of eligibility conditions. It held that the power need not be expressly recorded in the selection process if the selection committee and the Board have implicitly exercised it by selecting the candidate with the highest marks and higher qualification. (Paras 13, 18-20) C) Service Law - Selection Process - Merit - Preference - The Court emphasized that preference for higher qualification (M.Tech) can be considered in the selection process, and when combined with the highest merit score, justifies selection even if the candidate lacks the full prescribed experience. The absence of mala fides or procedural irregularity further supports the validity of the selection. (Paras 7, 13, 18-20)
Issue of Consideration
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 supposed relaxation of the eligibility conditions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 5942 of 2023 filed by Himakshi and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5943 of 2023 filed by Rahul. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Single Judge upholding the selection and appointment of Himakshi was restored. The Court held that the power of relaxation under Rule 18 was validly exercised, and the selection of Himakshi, being the most meritorious candidate with the highest marks and a higher qualification, was justified. The Court also noted that Rahul did not fulfill the essential experience requirement and thus was not entitled to appointment.
Law Points
- Essential qualification
- work experience
- power of relaxation
- higher qualification
- preference
- selection process
- merit
- recruitment rules
- advertisement
- eligibility conditions
