Higher qualifications cannot substitute mandatory eligibility; relaxation of recruitment criteria requires a conscious, reasoned, and written order.

The Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education ("the Board") issued a recruitment advertisement in 2016 for the post of Computer Hardware Engineer

The essential qualifications prescribed were a B.E./B.Tech degree and "at least 5 years’ experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance from a company of repute," with a preference for candidates holding an M.Tech degree

The appellant (Himakshi) possessed an M.Tech but had only one year of experience

Respondent No. 1 (Rahul) possessed approximately six years of experience but scored lower marks than Himakshi

The Board selected Himakshi based on her merit and higher qualification

Rahul challenged the selection before the Tribunal (later transferred to the High Court).

A Single Judge initially set aside the selection but later restored it on review, citing the Board's power to relax experience requirements for well-qualified candidates under the Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules

The Division Bench subsequently set aside Himakshi’s appointment, holding that she lacked essential experience and that no formal relaxation was recorded

The Court applied Rule 7 of the R&P Rules, which defines "minimum educational and other qualifications" as mandatory threshold conditions for recruitment

It relied on Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, establishing that a higher qualification cannot substitute for a prescribed essential qualification unless specifically permitted by statute

Regarding the power of relaxation, the Court applied Rule 18 of the R&P Rules and the guidelines from Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, which mandate that any relaxation of eligibility criteria must be a conscious, reasoned exercise recorded in writing

The Court considered the principles of equity in service matters from Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana and Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar, noting that such relief is discretionary and depends on whether the eligibility defect is marginal or goes to the root of the appointment

The Court observed that "experience" was an essential threshold condition under Rule 7, and the term "minimum" indicated it could not be bypassed by comparative merit or higher academic degrees

It clarified that "preference" for M.Tech holders only applies when candidates are otherwise eligible and at par in merit; it does not enlarge the zone of eligibility

Although Rule 18 granted a power to relax experience requirements, the Court found—after reviewing the Board's records—that no such power was ever formally exercised or reasoned in writing

The selection was thus made without due application of mind to the candidate’s ineligibility

The Court distinguished this case from precedents where long service protected irregular appointments, noting that Himakshi’s lack of experience was a fundamental defect involving specialized external experience that could not be "cured" by serving in the post itself

Furthermore, the Court refused to appoint Rahul, noting that the entire selection process was flawed as the eligibility of all candidates was not rigorously scrutinized at the threshold

(i) an essential qualification cannot be substituted by a preferential higher qualification

(ii) the power of relaxation must be exercised consciously with recorded reasons, which was absent here

(iii) equitable relief could not be granted because the eligibility defect went to the "root of the matter"

The Court declined to direct the appointment of Rahul, finding no indefeasible right to appointment in a vitiated process

The Board was granted liberty to issue a fresh advertisement for the post in accordance with the R&P Rules