State directed to establish academic equivalence or amend recruitment rules where specific degree nomenclatures are unavailable.

The petitioner, holding a three-year diploma in Hotel Management & Catering Technology, applied for the post of Lecturer in the Tourism Department pursuant to an advertisement dated 03.02.2015 issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

Although four vacancies were notified, no candidate was selected as none possessed the specific qualification nomenclature required: a three-year diploma/degree in "Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition" with first-division marks.

The petitioner contended that no institution awards degrees with that exact nomenclature, leading to a total lack of qualified applicants.

On 31.03.2017, the Secretary of Tourism issued a letter deciding to treat the petitioner’s diploma as equivalent to the advertised qualification.

However, the Selecting Body returned the recruitment requisition to the State on 15.05.2017, citing the need for formal rule amendments.

1. Whether the relief of appointment can be granted to the petitioner when the Selecting Body has already returned the recruitment requisition to the State Government.

2. Whether the State Government is obligated to resolve the technical discrepancy regarding the nomenclature of requisite qualifications to facilitate the selection process.

The court examined the principles of administrative equivalence and the procedural requirements for public recruitment. It recognized the State Government's executive power to determine the equivalence of academic qualifications for the purpose of appointment.

Furthermore, it applied the principle that a Selecting Body cannot proceed with recruitment if the administrative requisition is withdrawn or returned due to a pending amendment of the recruitment rules.

The Court observed that while the State Government was "alive to the problem" regarding the non-availability of candidates with the exact advertised nomenclature, the recruitment process had effectively stalled.

The Selecting Body (UKPSC) returned the requisition to the State in 2017 because the applicable Service Rules had not yet been formally amended to reflect the Government’s decision on qualification equivalence.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that it could not grant the primary relief of appointment because there was no active requisition or valid selection process currently pending with the Selecting Body.

However, noting the State's prior decision to treat the diploma as equivalent, the Court determined that the matter required a directive to the executive to finalize the legislative or administrative framework.

However, it disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Secretary, Tourism, to revisit the issue and decide within four months whether to amend the Service Rules or send a fresh requisition to the Selecting Body based on the equivalence decision of 31.03.2017.

The State Counsel was further directed to communicate the order to the Secretary immediately.