Employer-Prescribed Qualifications Are Final; Courts Cannot Expand Eligibility or Deem Equivalence Unless Rules Specifically Provide.

The petitioner sought a mandamus to participate in the counselling for 3,500 posts of Assistant Teachers (Urdu) in Uttar Pradesh based on notifications dated 05.01.2016 and 19.01.2016.

He held a two-year Primary Teachers Training (P.T.T.) certificate from a college in Jharkhand, recognized by the NCTE.

Although a previous interim order allowed him to participate provisionally, the District Basic Education Officer subsequently declared him ineligible on 23.02.2016.

The respondents argued that the petitioner lacked the specific training qualifications mandated in the advertisement, namely B.T.C. (Urdu) from specific UP districts, Moallim-E-Urdu (prior to 1997), or a Diploma from AMU.

1. Whether a candidate possessing a training qualification (P.T.T. from Jharkhand) not specified in the recruitment advertisement or state rules is entitled to be considered equivalent to the prescribed B.T.C. (Urdu) qualification for appointment.

2. Whether the court, under judicial review, can expand the prescribed eligibility criteria or treat a different qualification as equivalent to those set by the employer.

The Court applied the principle that the prescription of qualifications falls exclusively within the employer's domain, as held in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404.

It followed Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission (2024) 19 SCC 745, which establishes that candidates lacking essential qualifications prescribed in the rules cannot claim appointment.

Additionally, it relied on Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2013) 11 SCC 58 (eligibility must exist on the cut-off date) and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (2008) 7 SCC 153 (absence of eligibility is an incurable illegality).

The Court analyzed the petitioner’s credentials against the specific requirements of the advertisement, which required B.T.C. (Urdu) from designated UP centers, Moallim-E-Urdu (pre-1997), or an AMU Diploma.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s P.T.T. from Jharkhand was not recognized as equivalent to the two-year B.T.C. (Urdu) training required by the rules governing the recruitment.

Applying the Supreme Court precedents, the Court reasoned that it cannot exercise judicial review to expand eligibility or mandate equivalency unless the recruitment rules specifically provide for it.

Since the petitioner did not possess the specific training qualifications detailed in the advertisement, his claim for appointment was legally unsustainable.

The Court answered that an appointment contrary to the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement is impermissible in law.

Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed.