ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. versus THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 09-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 813 : 2023 INSC 992
813
CASE DETAILS
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS.
v.
THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 09, 2023
[HRISHIKESH ROY AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: (i) Whether relaxation in the essential 
eligibility qualifi cations could be made post the last date fi xed for receipt 
of applications; (ii) Essential eligibility qualifi cations specifi ed in the 
Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office Assistant 
(Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services, 
Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014, if ambiguous to warrant 
clarifi cation/relaxation; (iii) If there was a statutory regime in place to 
accord recognition to an Institution, if yes, whether the clarifi catory letter/
relaxation order is in ignorance of such statutory regime and therefore, 
invalid; (iv) In absence of prior consultation with the Commission, the 
relaxation/clarifi catory order if was in conformity with the 2014 Rules; (v) 
Whether in view of requirement for a written and computer typing test prior 
to selection, possession of one year diploma in Computer Science/Computer 
Application/IT from a recognised University/Institution was not an essential 
eligibility qualifi cation; (vi) Candidates holding qualifi cations other than 
the one prescribed by the 2014 Rules or the advertisement, though allegedly 
higher, if could be considered eligible; (vii) Employer if could be forced to 
fi ll all vacancies advertised; and whether it could be restrained from carrying 
it forward for fi lling it as per the amended/new Rules.
Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office 
Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted), 
Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 
2014 – Recruitment of Junior Offi  ce Assistants– Essential eligibility 
qualifi cations under the Rules – Relaxation in, after the last date for 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
receipt of the applications – Change in eligibility criteria midway – 
Legality:
Held: If the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility 
criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the 
advertisement – And when this power is exercised, there must be wide 
publicity of its exercise so that persons who are likely to benefi t by exercise 
of such power may get opportunity to apply and compete – In the present 
case, it is not shown that the advertisement reserved the power to relax 
the essential eligibility qualifi cations specifi ed in the advertisement at 
any later stage– It is not demonstrated that after the decision to relax the 
eligibility criteria was taken, the same was widely publicised – Further, 
the clarifi catory/relaxation order providing equivalence to certain courses 
was not founded on empirical data – If there existed a statutory procedure 
for granting recognition, an Institution cannot be considered recognized 
dehors that procedure – Power to relax the eligibility criteria, even if it 
existed, was not exercised in consonance with the settled legal principles 
and it violated the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14, 16 – 
Relaxation/clarifi catory order approved by the State cabinet after the last 
date fi xed by the advertisements (for Post Code 447 and 556) for receipt 
of applications from candidates, is not legally sustainable qua those posts, 
when no opportunity was aff orded to similarly placed persons who might 
have been left out to apply and compete with those candidates who, though 
not eligible as per the terms of the advertisement, had applied thereunder 
– Argument that requirement to hold one year diploma in the specifi ed 
courses was not an essential qualifi cation, rejected – Furthermore, there 
existed no provision in the extant Rules or the advertisement to treat any 
other qualifi cation as higher or equivalent to the one specifi ed, claim 
of candidates who could not demonstrate that they held the prescribed 
essential qualifi cations, rejected – An employer cannot be forced to fi ll 
all the existing vacancies under the old Rules – Directions contained in 
paragraphs 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment of the High Court, set 
aside – Further directions issued – Appointments already made under the 
fi rst advertisement (for Post Code 447) not to be disturbed – Constitution 
of India – Articles 14, 16 – Service Law – Appointment/Recruitment/
Selection. [Paras 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.