Courts cannot relax essential qualifications prescribed in a recruitment advertisement.

The petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of TGT (Science), Scheduled Caste category, pursuant to Advertisement No. 4 of 2014, which was subsequently withdrawn, and thereafter pursuant to Advertisement No. 3 of 2015 dated 28 June 2015.

The advertisement prescribed, inter alia, a B.Sc. degree with a combination of at least three specified science subjects, along with the requisite B.Ed. qualification.

The petitioners had obtained their B.Sc. degrees before the Haryana School Education (Group C) Service Rules, 2012 came into force on 11 April 2012, and contended that they were eligible under the earlier 1998 Rules, which allegedly required only two subjects.

Although the petitioners claimed to have secured substantially higher marks than the last selected candidate, they were not called for interview and were orally informed that they lacked the prescribed subject combination in their B.Sc. degrees.

They sought quashing of their rejection, a declaration of eligibility, and directions to permit them to participate in the interview.

The State opposed the petitions, relying principally on the Division Bench decision in Haryana Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary v. Monika Balwaria, LPA No. 1509 of 2019, decided on 19 March 2024, which had rejected an identical claim for relaxation.

The Court applied the Haryana School Education (Group C) Service Rules, 2012 and the essential qualifications expressly incorporated into Advertisement No. 3 of 2015, including the requirement of a B.Sc. degree with at least three specified science subjects.

It held that recruitment advertisements are binding on both candidates and the recruiting authority and cannot ordinarily be relaxed or altered by judicial interpretation.

Relying on Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, the Court reiterated that the employer determines essential qualifications and that courts cannot rewrite eligibility conditions or decide questions of equivalence.

Relying further on Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 19 SCC 596, it held that an advertisement has the trappings of a statutory prescription and binds the parties unless it is contrary to the governing rules or statute.

The Court also followed the Division Bench ruling in Monika Balwaria, which held that candidates lacking the essential qualification prescribed in the same selection process were not entitled to relaxation.

The Court found that the advertisement unambiguously required a B.Sc. degree containing a combination of at least three specified science subjects.

Since the petitioners admittedly did not satisfy this essential qualification, their prior acquisition of the B.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees, or their asserted eligibility under the repealed or earlier 1998 Rules, could not confer eligibility under the 2015 advertisement.

The Court also held that the petitioners’ superior marks and the alleged past one-time exemption granted through a 2012 corrigendum could not justify judicial relaxation of an essential qualification.

The governing advertisement was not shown to be contrary to the applicable 2012 Rules or otherwise unreasonable.

In view of the binding principle that courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the recruiting authority or rewrite the eligibility criteria, and because the issue was directly covered by Monika Balwaria, the petitioners were not entitled to interview or consideration for appointment.

It held that the petitioners, lacking the prescribed three-subject combination in their B.Sc. degrees, were ineligible under Advertisement No. 3 of 2015 and were not entitled to relaxation based on their earlier qualifications or the 1998 Rules.

Both writ petitions were accordingly dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.