A subsequent amendment cannot alter eligibility criteria for an already-commenced recruitment.

KVS Advertisement No. 15/2022 invited applications for PGT (Chemistry), prescribing a Master’s degree in Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry, among other qualifications.

The applicant, who held an M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry, cleared the written examination and interview and appeared in a provisional select list, but KVS declined to appoint her on the ground that she lacked the prescribed postgraduate qualification.

She contended that her degree was equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry, relying on a Mohan Lal Sukhadia University notification and later KVS Recruitment Rules; she also relied on another candidate’s appointment with a different Chemistry degree.

KVS maintained that the recruitment was governed by the Rules in force for Advertisement No. 15/2022 and that the applicant’s degree was not among the prescribed qualifications.

The applicant’s earlier O.A. was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh; in this O.A., she challenged the rejection order dated 18.03.2025 and sought appointment and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the applicant’s eligibility for recruitment under Advertisement No. 15/2022 could be assessed by reference to subsequent Recruitment Rules recognising equivalent qualifications.

2. Whether the applicant’s M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry established that she possessed the prescribed Master’s degree in Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry.

3. Whether the applicant’s participation in the selection process and inclusion in the provisional select list entitled her to appointment notwithstanding the respondents’ finding that she lacked the essential qualification.

Eligibility in a recruitment is determined by the Recruitment Rules and advertisement governing that recruitment; a subsequent amendment ordinarily operates prospectively unless it expressly or by necessary implication has retrospective effect.

A candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment merely by participating in the selection or being included in a select list, though an otherwise eligible candidate is entitled to consideration under the applicable rules.

Equivalence of academic qualifications is a technical academic matter and cannot be presumed merely from similarity in nomenclature or from overlap in course content.

The advertisement also reserved KVS’s authority to verify eligibility at any stage, including after the selection process.

The Tribunal treated the recruitment as having commenced under Advertisement No. 15/2022 and the Rules then in force.

Because those conditions specified Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry and did not expressly include Industrial Chemistry, the applicant could not rely on later Recruitment Rules in the absence of any indication that they operated retrospectively or required the earlier recruitment to be reopened.

Nor did her asserted course-content overlap, provisional selection, or participation establish that she held the prescribed qualification; the Tribunal considered that equivalence could not be assumed on those grounds.

It accordingly found no arbitrariness in KVS verifying her eligibility before appointment under the advertised conditions.

It dismissed the O.A., made no order as to costs, and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.