Uttarakhand High Court
22 May vs Uttarakhand Pravidhik on 22 May, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:4075
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition Service Single No. 910 of 2017
22 May, 2026
Kamal Kala & others --Petitioners
Versus
Uttarakhand Pravidhik
Shiksha Parishad and another. --Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma & Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Mukesh Kapruwan, Advocate for respondent no. 12.
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education
issued advertisement dated 08.02.2014, whereby
applications were invited for appointment to various
Group-C posts in different State Departments.
Petitioner applied for the post of Vyavasthapak
(Manager) in Government Estate Department. The
essential qualification, required for appointment on the
post of Vyavasthapak, are as follows:-
a) Bachelors Degree from a recognized
University in India.
b) Diploma in Catering and Hotel
Management from an institute recognized
by the Government.
2. It is not in dispute that petitioners do not
possess Diploma in Catering and Hotel Management.
They instead possess Bachelors Degree in Hospitality
1
2026:UHC:4075
and Hotel Administration from Indira Gandhi National
Open University, except petitioner no. 4, who
possesses Bachelors Degree in Hotel Management and
Catering Technology from HNB Garhwal University and
petitioner nos. 5 & 6, who possess Bachelors Degree in
Hotel Management and Catering Technology from
Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun.
Candidature of the petitioners was rejected on the
ground that they do not possess the essential
qualification needed for appointment.
3. The relief sought in the writ petition is as
follows:-
“i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to
select the petitioners as Vyawasthapak considering them
qualified for the post of Vyawasthapak.”
4. Petitioners contend that they possess a
qualification, which is higher than Diploma, therefore,
their claim for appointment could not have been
rejected when a lower qualification makes a candidate
eligible for appointment. It is further contended that
the course content of Diploma and Degree courses is
the same, inasmuch as whatever topics are included in
the syllabus of diploma course are part of the
curriculum for degree course, since students of degree
course make an in-depth study of the subject,
therefore, they are better suited for appointment as
Vyavasthapak, thus, degree holders who possess
higher degree cannot be held to be ineligible.
5. This Court do not find any scope for
interference in the matter. It is well settled that while
2
2026:UHC:4075
exercising power of judicial review, this Court cannot
declare diploma as equivalent to degree or vice-versa.
Whether qualification-A is to be treated as equivalent to
qualification-B for appointment to a particular post can
be decided by the State Government while framing
Recruitment Rules and this Court cannot sit in
judgment over the decision taken by State Government
as employer.
6. In the present case, the Recruitment Rule is
silent regarding Bachelors Degree and it recognizes
only Diploma qualification. Decision regarding
equivalence or otherwise of two different qualifications
can be taken by subject experts only and there is
nothing on record to show that Bachelors Degree
possessed by petitioners was ever recognized as
equivalent to Diploma in Hotel Management and
Catering Technology.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Himakshi v. Rahul Verma and others, reported as 2026
SCC OnLine 642, while dealing with similar issue held
as under:-
“26. The legal position regarding the impermissibility of
substituting prescribed qualifications with higher degrees,
in the absence of an express enabling provision, stands
fortified in the judgment of this Court in Zahoor Ahmad
Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad1, where it was held that
in absence of a specific statutory rule or a provision in the
advertisement, the recruiting agency cannot broaden the
eligibility criteria by treating a higher qualification as a
replacement for the mandatory ‘essential’ qualification’.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced for
ready reference:–
“26. …it would not be permissible to draw an
inference that a higher qualification necessarily
presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower,
qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a
post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as
the employer is entitled to prescribe the3
2026:UHC:4075
qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part
of the role or function of judicial review to expand
upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications.
Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a
matter which can be determined in exercise of the
power of judicial review. Whether a particular
qualification should or should not be regarded as
equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting
authority, to determine.”
27. It is trite law that the terms of the recruitment rules and
the advertisement form the basis of the selection process
and are binding on both, the candidates as well as the
recruiting agencies. Any departure therefrom, unless
expressly permitted and properly exercised, would be
arbitrary and violative of the principles of selection.”
8. Even otherwise also, when the Recruitment
Rules or the advertisement clearly mention that
candidates with diploma in relevant branch alone would
be eligible, then persons possessing degree in relevant
branch will not become ipso facto eligible for
appointment. The Selecting Body can consider degree
holders for appointment only if there is an enabling
provision in the Rules permitting consideration of
persons possessing equivalent or higher qualification
for appointment. In the present case, Rules do not
contain such enabling provision.
9. It is not case of the petitioners that the Rules
contain a provision, which enables Selecting Body to
consider claim of persons, who though do not possess
diploma, possess some other qualification, which is
recognized as equivalent to diploma. In the present
case, advertisement and the Rules mention diploma as
the only qualification needed for appointment,
therefore, rejection of candidature of petitioners by the
Selecting Body cannot be faulted.
4
2026:UHC:4075
10. Learned counsel for petitioners then
contended that Rules were amended in 2023, whereby
degree holders were made eligible for appointment as
Vyavasthapak.
11. Learned State Counsel is right in submitting
that even though the degree holders were made
eligible for appointment as Vyavasthapak by an
amendment, then also it will not help the case of the
petitioners, as an amendment made in 2023, will not
apply retrospectively to a selection, held in 2014.
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tej
Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, reported as
(2025) 2 SCC 1 held that Cut-off date with reference to
which eligibility has to be determined is the date
appointed by the relevant service rules; where no such
cut-off date is provided in the rules, then it will be the
date appointed in the advertisement inviting
applications; and if there is no such date appointed,
then eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to
the last date appointed by which the applications were
to be received. Para nos. 14, 15 & 16 of the said
judgment are reproduced below:-
” 14. In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing
recruitment to public services has been colloquially
termed as “the rules of the game”. The “game” is the
process of selection and appointment. Courts have
consistently frowned upon tinkering with the rules of the
game once the recruitment process commences. This has
crystallised into an oft-quoted legal phrase that “the rules
of the game must not be changed midway, or after the
game has been played”. Broadly speaking these rules fall
in two categories. One which prescribes the eligibility
criteria (i.e. essential qualifications) of the candidates
seeking employment; and the other which stipulates the
method and manner of making the selection from
amongst the eligible candidates.
15. Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to
5
2026:UHC:4075
be determined is the date appointed by the relevant
service rules; where no such cut-off date is provided in
the rules, then it will be the date appointed in the
advertisement inviting applications; and if there is no
such date appointed, then eligibility criteria shall be
applied by reference to the last date appointed by which
the applications were to be received.
16. The law is settled that after commencement of the
recruitment process the eligibility criteria is not to be
altered because candidates even if eligible under the
altered criteria might not apply by the last date under the
belief that they are not eligible as per the advertised
criteria. [Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University,
(2009) 4 SCC 555 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 917] Such
alteration/change, therefore, deprives a person of the
guarantee of equal opportunity in matters of public
employment provided by Article 16 of the Constitution.
The reference order [Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of
Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 540 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 353]
therefore acknowledges this legal position and in clear
terms accepts that “the rules of the game” cannot be
changed after commencement of the recruitment process
insofar as the eligibility criteria is concerned.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the reliefs as
claimed by petitioners cannot be granted.
14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
22 May, 2026
Navin
6
