An appointment letter confers no right to appointment where the prescribed qualification is unrecognised.

The applicant applied for appointment as a Skilled Work Assistant (SWA) in the Work Charged Establishment of the Central Water Commission pursuant to a recruitment notice requiring Matriculation/ITI or an equivalent qualification from a recognised Board, University or Institution.

He was shortlisted, participated in the physical test, was included among 67 successful candidates, and was issued an appointment letter dated 1 February 2018.

The respondents subsequently questioned the recognition of his Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, and required him to produce proof of the Board’s lawful recognition.

The applicant relied on representations, governmental lists, RTI replies and other material contending that the Board was recognised and that any subsequent de-recognition could not retrospectively invalidate his 2013 certificate.

The respondents relied on communications from the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh; a communication from the Ministry of Human Resource Development; and decisions of the Allahabad High Court stating that the Board lacked statutory foundation and that its certificates were unrecognised.

The applicant’s candidature was consequently cancelled/not given effect to.

Interim protection granted by the Gujarat High Court directing that a seat be kept available was later discharged when the proceedings were withdrawn for want of jurisdiction, with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant could claim appointment merely on the basis of the appointment letter dated 1 February 2018, when subsequent verification indicated that his Matriculation Certificate was not issued by a legally recognised Board?

Whether the respondents were justified in cancelling or withholding the applicant’s candidature after verifying that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior lacked lawful recognition?

Whether the applicant’s prior selection, issuance of the appointment letter, reliance on RTI replies, and the interim order of the High Court created an enforceable right to appointment?

The Tribunal applied the recruitment condition requiring Matriculation or an equivalent qualification from a recognised Board, University or Institution.

It held that eligibility and equivalence of qualifications are primarily matters for the recruiting authority and that courts ordinarily should not substitute their assessment for that of the employer.

Relying on Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308, the Tribunal reiterated that a candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment merely because he was permitted to participate in selection or was included in a merit list, although he is entitled to fair and non-discriminatory consideration.

It also relied on the principles in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86, and the Gujarat High Court decisions in Roshniben Anilbhai Gavit v. State of Gujarat and Bariya Kiritsinh Dalpatsinh v. State of Gujarat, holding that the employer determines essential qualifications and that judicial review cannot rewrite the eligibility conditions in an advertisement.

The Tribunal further held that an appointment subject to verification of certificates does not create an unconditional or vested right to appointment.

The advertisement expressly required a qualification from a recognised Board, and the appointment letter was subject to verification of the applicant’s educational documents and to cancellation in the event of an adverse report.

The respondents obtained communications from the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh stating that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior had not been established by law and was not recognised, supported by findings of the Allahabad High Court that certificates issued by it lacked legal recognition.

The applicant did not produce any authoritative statutory instrument proving that the Board was legally constituted and recognised.

The Tribunal held that old lists and RTI replies could not substitute for statutory recognition, and that the respondents’ RTI replies did not independently confer recognition on the Board.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s argument that the 2013 certificate could not be affected by the MHRD public notice issued later, because the respondents’ case was not based merely on retrospective de-recognition; it was that the Board lacked lawful recognition or statutory existence in the first place.

The applicant’s selection and appointment letter therefore could not cure the absence of an essential eligibility qualification.

The High Court’s interim direction to keep a seat available was procedural and did not amount to a finding that the applicant possessed the required qualification.

It held that the applicant failed to establish that his Matriculation Certificate was issued by a legally recognised Board satisfying the recruitment advertisement.

The respondents were therefore justified in withholding or cancelling his candidature, and the appointment letter dated 1 February 2018 did not confer an absolute or vested right to appointment because it was subject to verification and fulfilment of the eligibility conditions.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.