The Supreme Court has reiterated that essential qualifications prescribed by the recruiting authority must be read as written, and that general recognition of an open schooling qualification cannot override specific eligibility conditions framed for a technical post. Essentially, the Court held that the expression ‘under 10+2 system of education’ is an integral part of the prescribed academic qualification and cannot be ignored or read down merely because a candidate holds a recognised open schooling certificate.
The Court clarified that the question is not whether the NIOS Secondary School Certificate is a recognised qualification in general, but whether it satisfies the specific eligibility condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post in question. The Court also held that comparative merit can be considered only amongst candidates who satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions, and that higher marks in a written examination cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification.
Placing weight on the consistent interpretation placed by the Department in earlier recruitment cycles, the Apex Court noted that the Appellant himself had been found ineligible in 2015 on the same ground of holding a National Open School certificate.
Briefly, the Directorate of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of Goa, issued an advertisement dated Nov 05, 2021, inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber. The Recruitment Rules governing the post were notified vide Official Gazette dated April 20, 2006, which prescribed the following essential qualifications: (a) Academic – Passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education; (b) Technical – National Trade/National Apprenticeship Certificate in the trade; and (c) Experience – Practical experience of not less than 5 years in the industry.
The Appellant, Santosh B. Naik, applied for the post under the unreserved category on Nov 25, 2021, and Respondent No. 3 also applied. A written examination was held on Nov 09, 2022, in which Respondent No. 3 secured 96 marks, and the Appellant secured 94 marks. By notice dated March 08, 2023, candidates were asked to produce documents for verification, with selection on merit being expressly subject to authentication of the requisite documents. On March 23, 2023, the Departmental Selection Committee found that Respondent No. 3 did not possess the essential academic qualification of having passed 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education, and accordingly declared him ineligible.
The Appellant was found eligible and placed in the Final Selection List, and was offered the post by Memorandum dated March 24, 2023, which he accepted on March 27, 2023. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 3 approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa, contending that he possessed the requisite academic qualification by virtue of having passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) in June 2004, with subjects English, Home Science, Science, Economics and Hindi. The High Court allowed the petition, treated the NIOS qualification as satisfying the prescribed requirement, and directed the authorities to consider Respondent No. 3 for recruitment in light of his marks.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Aravind Kumar noted that the relevant facts were not in dispute, that the Respondent No. 3 held an NIOS Secondary School Certificate, secured 96 marks in the written examination against the Appellant’s 94 marks, but selection on merit was subject to satisfaction of the essential eligibility criteria. The Court framed the core question as whether a candidate possessing the NIOS Secondary School Certificate satisfies the specific requirement of having ‘passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education’ prescribed for the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber.
The Court observed that the requirement was not merely that the candidate should have passed the 10th standard, but specifically that the candidate should have ‘passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education’, and the words ‘under 10+2 system of education’ could not be ignored as they formed part of the prescribed qualification. The 10+2 system, as envisaged in the National Policy on Education, comprises a structured course of formal schooling in which Science and Mathematics are compulsory subjects, whereas Respondent No. 3 had cleared English, Home Science, Science, Economics and Hindi through NIOS and had not studied Mathematics.
The Court further observed that the question was not whether the NIOS Secondary School Certificate was a recognised qualification in general, but whether it satisfied the specific eligibility condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post in question, and the Rules contained no provision treating a qualification recognised as equivalent to the 10th standard as satisfying the requirement of having passed 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education.
The Court also observed that the nature of the post was relevant, being a technical teaching post requiring a National Trade/National Apprenticeship Certificate and practical industry experience, and the qualifications had to be considered in that context. Significantly, the Court noted that in the earlier recruitment process undertaken in 2015 for the same post, the Appellant himself had been found not eligible during the course of interview on the ground that he had passed the Secondary School examination of the National Open School and did not possess the essential qualification of having passed 10th standard under the 10+2 system, demonstrating that the Department had consistently applied the same interpretation.
The Court further observed that the recognition of the NIOS qualification by the Goa Board or other educational authorities could not, by itself, amend or enlarge the eligibility condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for appointment to a particular post. The Court also held that the higher marks secured by Respondent No. 3 could have no bearing on the issue of eligibility, since comparative merit could be considered only amongst candidates who satisfied the prescribed eligibility conditions, and marks in the written examination could not cure the absence of an essential qualification.
