Statutory recruitment qualifications requiring 10+2 Science with PCB cannot be judicially relaxed.

The petitioners originally filed Original Application No. 4782 of 2018 before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to the High Court after abolition of the Tribunal as CWPOA No. 4930 of 2020.

They challenged Condition (i) of the advertisement dated 16 September 2017 for 113 posts of Operation Theatre Assistant (Post Code 642), which required 10+2 with Science subjects—Physics, Chemistry and Biology—with 50% marks, along with an Operation Theatre Assistant training qualification.

Petitioner No. 2, Namita Devi, had passed 10+2 in Commerce and held a Diploma in Operation Theatre Technology; Petitioner No. 3, Karan Shekhar, had passed 10+2 in Science with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, but without Biology, and also held a Diploma in Operation Theatre Technology.

Their candidature was rejected for failure to satisfy the prescribed 10+2 subject requirement.

Petitioner No. 1’s claim was abandoned after he joined Government service.

The petitioners contended that possession of a recognized Operation Theatre qualification made the additional requirement of 10+2 Science with Physics, Chemistry and Biology arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Commission maintained that the advertisement faithfully reproduced the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

1. Whether Condition (i) of the advertisement requiring 10+2 with Science subjects—Physics, Chemistry and Biology—with 50% marks was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the petitioners, despite possessing diplomas in Operation Theatre Technology, were entitled to consideration for appointment when they did not satisfy the statutory educational qualification prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the advertisement.

3. Whether the High Court could relax or judicially modify the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The Court applied the Recruitment and Promotion Rules prescribing, inter alia, 10+2 with Science subjects—Physics, Chemistry and Biology—with 50% marks, an Operation Theatre Assistant training course recognized by the State Government or the specified alternative degree qualification, and registration with the Himachal Pradesh Para Medical Council.

It held that the State or appointing authority is competent to prescribe essential qualifications according to the requirements of the post, and courts cannot rewrite or relax clear eligibility conditions.

Relying on Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, the Court reiterated that determination of essential qualifications and questions of equivalence ordinarily fall within the employer’s domain.

It also relied on Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 17 SCC 373, against relaxation of advertisement conditions, and Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 9 SCC 740, concerning the absence of an enforceable claim contrary to the prescribed recruitment criteria.

The Court found that the advertisement expressly required 10+2 Science with Physics, Chemistry and Biology and that this requirement was directly consistent with the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

Neither petitioner satisfied the requirement: Namita Devi had Commerce subjects, while Karan Shekhar lacked Biology despite having studied other Science subjects.

Their possession of diplomas in Operation Theatre Technology could not cure the absence of the mandatory basic educational qualification.

The Court further held that the petitioners had not challenged the Recruitment and Promotion Rules themselves, nor shown that the prescribed subject combination was contrary to any statute or otherwise arbitrary.

The requirement of Biology was held to have a rational connection with the duties of an Operation Theatre Assistant, as basic knowledge of human and biological conditions was relevant to the post.

Since the eligibility language was clear and conformed to the statutory Rules, the Court declined to substitute its own assessment of the appropriate qualification or to select candidates who were ineligible under the applicable criteria.

It upheld Condition (i) of the advertisement dated 16 September 2017 as valid and consistent with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, and upheld the rejection of Namita Devi’s and Karan Shekhar’s candidatures.

The Court left it open to the petitioners to challenge the Recruitment Rules or seek relaxation from the competent authority, if such remedies were available in law.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.