Minimum qualifying service must be fulfilled on the application date and cannot be judicially relaxed.

The petitioner’s father, a Group-IV employee in the Bhagalpur Civil Court, died in harness on 6 March 2012. An application for the petitioner’s compassionate appointment was submitted on 2 July 2012, and the petitioner was eventually appointed to a Class-IV post by order dated 6/7 August 2021; he thereafter joined and worked in the Bhagalpur Civil Court.

Following a notice dated 12 August 2026, applications were invited from Group-C employees for promotion to the post of Upper Divisional Clerk (Grade III). The notice prescribed a minimum qualifying service period (Kalavadhi) of 5½ years.

The petitioner claimed that, having completed five years and one day of service, he should be permitted to apply because the delay in his compassionate appointment was attributable to the authorities and not to him.

The respondents opposed the claim, contending that the petitioner did not satisfy the prescribed 5½-year eligibility requirement and that the requirement was mandatory under Rule 17 of the Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staffs (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2022.

Whether the petitioner, having completed only five years and one day of service instead of the prescribed 5½ years, was eligible to submit an application and participate in the promotion process for Upper Divisional Clerk pursuant to the notice dated 12 August 2026?

Whether the petitioner’s eligibility period could be relaxed or adjusted on account of the delay in his compassionate appointment, allegedly caused by the respondent authorities?

Whether the High Court could direct acceptance of the petitioner’s application and permit his participation in the selection process under Article 226 of the Constitution despite non-fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility condition?

The Court applied Rules 14 and 17 of the Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staffs (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2022. Rule 14 requires an employee to complete the prescribed Kalavadhi for consideration for promotion, while Rule 17 provides that the qualifying service period for promotion shall be the period applicable in the Government of Bihar.

The Court also applied the terms of the recruitment notice, which prescribed 5½ years of service as an eligibility condition.

Relying on Himakshi v. Rahul Verma, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 642, the Court reiterated that minimum experience is a threshold or essential eligibility condition; recruitment rules and the advertisement bind both candidates and recruiting authorities, and a candidate who does not satisfy the essential requirement on the relevant date cannot be treated as eligible or granted relaxation merely on equitable or comparative considerations.

The Court held that the relevant eligibility requirement had to be satisfied on the date of submission of the application.

It was undisputed that the petitioner had completed only five years and one day of service, whereas the notice required 5½ years.

Although the Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s father had died in harness in 2012 and that the compassionate appointment process had taken several years, it held that such circumstances could not override the mandatory eligibility condition prescribed by the Rules and the recruitment notice.

Applying the principle in Himakshi, the Court concluded that the prescribed period was an essential threshold requirement and could not be relaxed by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit, and any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.