Employer-prescribed eligibility criteria for public service do not warrant judicial interference unless demonstrably unreasonable.

The petitioner, a resident of Uttar Pradesh who completed his entire education (High School, Intermediate, and D.El.Ed.) in that state, challenged a recruitment advertisement dated 07.11.2025

The advertisement, issued by the District Education Officer (Primary), Almora, for the post of Assistant Teacher, contained Clause ‘Ga,’ which required candidates to satisfy one of three conditions: (i) be a permanent resident/domicile of Uttarakhand, (ii) be registered with an employment exchange in Uttarakhand, or (iii) have passed 10th or 12th examinations from a school within Uttarakhand

The petitioner, meeting none of these criteria, sought to challenge the clause and requested a direction to the authorities not to reject his candidature

The State contended the conditions were based on statutory rules notified on 28.06.2019

Whether the eligibility conditions stipulated in Clause ‘Ga’ of the advertisement are legally sustainable and within the employer's prerogative to determine

Whether the Court should exercise its power of judicial review to interfere with recruitment conditions that the petitioner fails to meet under both the advertisement and the statutory rules

The Court primarily applied the statutory rules regarding eligibility for public services framed in 2010, as amended by the notification dated 28.06.2019

It relied on the administrative law principle that an employer possesses the authority to determine specific eligibility conditions for appointment to public services

Furthermore, the Court applied the standard of judicial review, which dictates that administrative conditions in a recruitment process remain valid unless they are "so unreasonable" as to warrant judicial interference

The Court noted that while some conditions in the advertisement might not be explicitly referable to the 2019 amendment rules, the petitioner indisputably failed to satisfy the criteria set forth in both the advertisement and the applicable rules

The Court reasoned that the eligibility of a candidate must be strictly tested against the advertisement and the governing statutory framework

It further observed that the requirement for local residency, local registration, or local schooling was not "so unreasonable" as to justify the court’s intervention through judicial review

Because the petitioner did not meet any of the three alternative eligibility benchmarks determined by the employer, the Court found no legal basis to grant an exemption or strike down the clause

The Court found no grounds to interfere with the advertisement or the rules

Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed