Provisional appointees lacking mandatory qualifications for specific trades must be accommodated in alternate posts commensurate with their qualifications.

The applicants are "Land Losers" whose families surrendered land for the establishment of INS Rajali. Under state government directives (G.O.Ms. No. 1244) and prior Madras High Court orders, they were entitled to priority employment.

Following a selection process, the applicants were appointed to various technical posts such as Machinist (SK), Rigger (SK), and Carpenter (Skilled).

During their probation, the respondents orally informed the applicants that their services would be terminated for failing to produce "Apprenticeship Training Certificates" required under the Recruitment Rules (SRO 43/2012).

The applicants challenged the proposed termination, citing three years of satisfactory service and a recommendation for relaxation by the second respondent.

1. Whether the applicants, lacking the mandatory apprenticeship qualification prescribed by the Recruitment Rules, are entitled to continue in their current technical posts

2. Whether the applicants can be accommodated in alternative skilled or unskilled posts commensurate with their actual qualifications in light of their status as displaced land losers

3. Whether the applicant in OA 535/2025 meets the statutory eligibility criteria for his post

The court applied SRO 43/2012 (as amended by SRO 31/2017), which mandates matriculation and successful completion of apprenticeship training in the relevant trade as essential qualifications.

P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, establishing that eligibility must be strictly determined by prescribed rules regardless of higher qualifications.

Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, which held that higher qualifications cannot be treated as equivalent to prescribed ones unless the rules expressly permit such equivalence.

The court also noted that power to relax qualifications rests solely with the Central Government in consultation with the UPSC.

The Tribunal observed that most applicants (except for the applicant in OA 535/2025) did not possess the mandatory apprenticeship training at the time of appointment.

Applying the principle that appointments made in violation of recruitment rules are generally void, the Tribunal noted that higher qualifications (like Diplomas in Engineering) held by some applicants could not substitute for the specific statutory requirement of apprenticeship.

However, the court balanced this against the applicants' status as land losers and the Division Bench order in W.A. Nos. 326/1998, which suggested that if a person is not qualified for a specific post, they should be engaged in other skilled or unskilled labor.

Since the second respondent had already expressed satisfaction with the applicants' performance and recommended retention, the Tribunal found that total termination would be disproportionate.

The applicants in OA 534, 536, and 537/2025 did not meet the mandatory technical criteria; however, the respondents were directed to consider them for appointment to alternative "appropriate posts" commensurate with their actual qualifications (skilled or unskilled) without terminating their services.

This relief ensures compliance with the spirit of the land-loser employment scheme while upholding the sanctity of the Recruitment Rules.