Uttarakhand High Court
Sadhana vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 21 April, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:2907
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition No. 1692 of 2025 (SS)
Sadhana --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another -Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 1321 of 2025 (SS)
Neha Khetwal --Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission -Respondent
With
Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2025 (SS)
Mahima Rana --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another -Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 1345 of 2025 (SS)
Ajeet Rawat and another --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another -Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 1418 of 2025 (SS)
Vikram Jeet Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another -Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 1427 of 2025 (SS)
Akshay Kumar --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another -Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates: Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kandpal,
Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for Selecting Body
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. Since common questions of law and fact are
1
2026:UHC:2907
involved, these writ petitions are heard together and are
being decided by this common judgment
Writ Petition No. 1692 of 2025
2. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission issued an
advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the
posts of Investigator cum Computer and Assistant
Statistical Officer on 07.02.2024. Petitioner participated
in the selection and her name figured in the provisional
merit list; however, at the time of document verification,
her candidature was rejected vide order dated
10.06.2025, on the ground that she does not possess
‘One Year Diploma in Computer Application’.
3. Petitioner submitted representation enclosing
therein the Diploma possessed by her for contending that
the qualification possessed by her is equivalent to the
qualification required for the post. The representation
was rejected on 28.07.2025 by holding that one must
possess the qualification mentioned in the applicable
Rules and the rules do not provide that any qualification
recognized as equivalent to the one mentioned in the
Rules, would also be sufficient for appointment. Petitioner
has challenged orders dated 10.06.2025 and dated
28.07.2025 in this writ petition.
4. The advertisement dated 07.04.2024 is on record as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As per the
advertisement, besides possessing Bachelor’s degree in
certain subjects, a candidate should possess either ‘O’
level Diploma in Computers or One Year Diploma in
Computer Science/Computer Application from a
recognized University or Institution.
5. Petitioner has enclosed copy of the certificate
2
2026:UHC:2907
possessed by her, which was issued by Aptech Computer
Education in her favour on 30.07.2018, which is annexed
as Anneuxre-3 to the writ petition. Perusal of the
certificate reveals that it was issued to the petitioner
upon successful completion of ADSE (Shikhar Project)
Course in ‘B’ Grade. Thus, the name of course pursued by
petitioner is ADSE (Shikhar Project), which does not
indicate that it was a course of study in Computers.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
certificate possessed by petitioner is equivalent to one
year Diploma in Computer Science/ Computer Application
required by the advertisement; moreover, the certificate
possessed by petitioner is of a higher level compared to
what was required by the advertisement.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Selecting Body submits that:
(i) According to the own showing of the
petitioner, she do not possess a diploma and
the document enclosed as Annexure-3 to
the writ petition is only a certificate issued
by a private college.
(ii) The certificate possessed by petitioner does
not indicate that she passed any course in
computer science or computer application.
(iii) Neither in the applicable service rules nor in
the advertisement, there is any stipulation
that a qualification other than the one
mentioned in the rules would also be treated
as sufficient if it is found to be recognized as
equivalent. He submits that since the rules
prescribe a particular qualification for
appointment without any liberty to Selecting
Body or the employer to relax that
qualification or to consider any other
qualification which is treated as equivalent
to the one required, therefore the selecting
body, cannot treat anyone not possessing
the requisite qualification, as eligible.
3
2026:UHC:2907
(iv) Petitioner claimed in her online application
that she possesses one year diploma in
computer application; however, at the time
of scrutiny of documents it was found that
she neither possesses diploma and the
certificate which she possesses is not in the
related branch i.e. computer application.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a
judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in
Special Appeal No. 284 of 2023 for contending that
Diploma issued by Aptech Computer Education is valid.
Perusal of the judgment, however, reveals that appellant
in that case was possessing Advanced Diploma in
Software Engineering and the Division Bench was dealing
with some selection for some other posts, therefore,
merely because Diploma possessed by the appellant in
that case was declared to be valid for some other
selection cannot be sufficient for holding that the
certificate possessed by petitioner is also valid for the
posts in question.
9. The stand taken by Selecting Body is that in the
absence of any stipulation in the applicable rules, no
qualification other than the one prescribed by the rules
can be treated to be sufficient for appointment and there
is no leeway available to the Selecting Body to consider
any qualification which is not mentioned in the rules.
10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief
Manager, Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Anit
Kumar Das, reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 897 held
that it is for the employer to determine and decide the
relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post
and it is not for courts to consider and assess the same.
The advertisement for the posts in question provides that
4
2026:UHC:2907
one must possess ‘O’ level Diploma in Computers or One
Year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application
from a recognized University or Institution. When the
advertisement or the rules prescribed a particular
qualification for appointment to a post, then anyone who
does not possess the prescribed qualification cannot be
considered for appointment.
11. In the case of Maharashtra Public Service
Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram
Warade and others, reported as 2019 (6) SCC 362,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve
into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being
on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive
re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence
will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If
language of the advertisement and the rules are clear,
the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same.
12. Similarly, in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and
others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, reported as
(2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court: that prescription of qualifications for a post is a
matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer
is entitled to prescribe the 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. Para 26 of the said judgment is
extracted below:
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which
has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC5
2026:UHC:2907
(L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of
Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] .
The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned
on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, 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 the 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. The decision
in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification
could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The
absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial
difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the
Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW)
No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court
was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad
Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned
Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants
did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the
decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No.
135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
13. In the case of State of State of Punjab and others
Vs. Anita and other, reported as (2015) 2 SCC 170,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 13 that it is
imperative for the candidates to possess the statutory
qualification prescribed for appointment to the posts, to
which they are seeking appointment. Para 13 of the said
judgment is extracted below:
13. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments leave no room for any
doubt that it is imperative for the candidates to possess the
statutory qualification prescribed for appointment to the posts, to
which they are seeking appointment. In view of the position
declared by this Court, qualifications of BEd and other qualifications
possessed by the private respondents, namely, MA, MSc, MCom,
etc. cannot be treated as higher qualifications with reference to the
prescribed qualifications (JBT/ETT). We, therefore, find the reasons
recorded by the DEO in the impugned order dated 4-4-2005 were
fully justified, and in consonance with the legal position declared by
this Court, as has been noticed hereinabove.
14. The contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the qualification possess by petitioner is
higher than what is required for appointment also cannot6
2026:UHC:2907
be accepted in the absence of any provision in the
advertisement or the rules authorizing appointment of
persons with higher qualifications. This aspect was dealt
with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Anita (supra). Para 15 of the said judgment
which deals with similar contention is reproduced below:
“15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid
observations, that since the private respondents possess higher
qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be
treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts
of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the
aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private
respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into
consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid
observations in Jyoti K.K. case [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596] , permitted the aforesaid course.
The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder : (SCC p. 598,
para 6)
“6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
’10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or
in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive
orders or Standing Orders of Government as equivalent to a
qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and [Ed. : The
matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original as
well.] such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall
also be sufficient for the post [Ed. : The matter between two
asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] .'”
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher
qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the present
controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory provision
authorising the appointment of persons with higher qualifications.
15. Even otherwise also, in the present case, petitioner
do not possess Diploma and the document which she
relies on is merely a certificate. In the certificate
possessed by petitioner, there is nothing to indicate that
the course which she pursued was in Computer Science
or Computer Application. Nomenclature of the course as
ADSE (Shikhar Project) does not make any sense;
therefore, rejection of petitioner’s candidature by the
Selecting Body cannot be interfered with. The writ
petition fails and is dismissed.
7
2026:UHC:2907
Writ Petition No. 1321 of 2025 (SS)
16. All other facts of this case are similar to that of Writ
Petition No. 1692 of 2025 (SS), and the only difference is
that petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant
Statistical Officer Group-II (Agriculture and Farmer
Welfare Department) for which the qualification required
was Post Graduate Degree in Mathematics, Statistics,
Mathematical Statistics, Economics, Commerce with ‘O’
level Diploma in Computers.
17. In her online application, petitioner mentioned that
she possesses ‘O’ level Diploma in Computers; however,
at the time of document verification, Selecting Body
found that she possesses a certificate issued by Aptech
Computer Education in ‘ADSE (Shikhar Project) Course’.
Her candidature was rejected on 10.06.2025 on the
ground that she does not meet the eligibility conditions as
mentioned in the advertisement. She made a
representation which was rejected on 28.07.2025 by
holding that she do not possess the qualification as
mentioned in the advertisement, namely, ‘O’ level
Diploma in Computers.
18. Since petitioner does not possess ‘O’ level Diploma
in Computers from a recognized Institution and she relied
on a certificate which does not indicate that the course of
study pursued by petitioner was in Computer Science or
Computer Application, therefore, decision taken by
Selecting Body of rejecting petitioner’s candidature
cannot be faulted. There is no material on record which
may substantiate that certificate possessed by petitioner
is equivalent to ‘O’ level diploma.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
8
2026:UHC:2907
qualification possessed by petitioner in the field of
computer is much higher than what was required. This
Court cannot express any opinion on this question as
Public Service Commission consists of subject experts
and the experts have taken a decision, holding that the
qualification possessed by petitioner is not as per rules,
therefore, this Court cannot examine the question
whether the qualification possessed by petitioner is of
higher standard or of a lower level.
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief
Manager, Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Anit
Kumar Das, reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 897 held
that it is for the employer to determine and decide the
relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post
and it is not for courts to consider and assess the same.
The advertisement for the posts in question provides that
one must possess ‘O’ level Diploma in Computers or One
Year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application
from a recognized University or Institution. When the
advertisement or the rules prescribed a particular
qualification for appointment to a post, then anyone who
does not possess the prescribed qualification cannot be
considered for appointment.
21. In the case of Maharashtra Public Service
Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram
Warade and others, reported as 2019 (6) SCC 362,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve
into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being
on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive
re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence
will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If
9
2026:UHC:2907
language of the advertisement and the rules are clear,
the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same.
22. Similarly, in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and
others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, reported as
(2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court
that prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of
recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled
to prescribe the 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. Para 26 of the said judgment is extracted
below:
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which
has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
(L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of
Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] .
The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned
on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, 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 the 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. The decision
in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification
could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The
absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial
difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the
Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW)
No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court
was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad
Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned
Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants
did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the
decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No.
135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
23. In the case of State of State of Punjab and others
10
2026:UHC:2907
Vs. Anita and other, reported as (2015) 2 SCC 170,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 13 that it is
imperative for the candidates to possess the statutory
qualification prescribed for appointment to the posts, to
which they are seeking appointment. Para 13 of the said
judgment is extracted below:
13. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments leave no room for any
doubt that it is imperative for the candidates to possess the
statutory qualification prescribed for appointment to the posts, to
which they are seeking appointment. In view of the position
declared by this Court, qualifications of BEd and other qualifications
possessed by the private respondents, namely, MA, MSc, MCom,
etc. cannot be treated as higher qualifications with reference to the
prescribed qualifications (JBT/ETT). We, therefore, find the reasons
recorded by the DEO in the impugned order dated 4-4-2005 were
fully justified, and in consonance with the legal position declared by
this Court, as has been noticed hereinabove.
24. The contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the qualification possessed by petitioner is
higher than what is required for appointment, also cannot
be accepted in the absence of any provision in the
advertisement or the rules authorizing appointment of
persons with higher qualifications. This aspect was dealt
with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Anita (supra). Para 15 of the said judgment
which deals with similar contention is reproduced below:
“15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid
observations, that since the private respondents possess higher
qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be
treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts
of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the
aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private
respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into
consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid
observations in Jyoti K.K. case [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596] , permitted the aforesaid course.
The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder : (SCC p. 598,
para 6)
“6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
’10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or
in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive
orders or Standing Orders of Government as equivalent to a
qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and [Ed. : The
matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original as
well.] such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall11
2026:UHC:2907
also be sufficient for the post [Ed. : The matter between two
asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] .'”
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher
qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the present
controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory provision
authorising the appointment of persons with higher qualifications.
Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2025 (SS)
Writ Petition No. 1345 of 2025 (SS)
Writ Petition No. 1418 of 2025 (SS)
Writ Petition No. 1427 of 2025 (SS)
25. Petitioner’s candidature for appointment to the post
of Assistant Statistical Officer/Assistant Research Officer
(Department of Finance and Statistics) was rejected on
the ground that the qualification possessed by her is not
as required by the advertisement.
26. As per the advertisement, one must possess ‘O’
level Diploma in Computers or One Year Diploma in
Computer Science/Computer Application from a
recognized University/Institution, in addition to Post
Graduate Degree in certain courses specified in the
advertisement.
27. Admittedly, petitioner possesses Advanced Diploma
in Information Technology course from a private
institution namely I.T. Computer Education. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that duration of said
course was 15 months, therefore, it is at a higher level
compared to One Year Diploma in Computer
Science/Computer Application. He further submits that
the curriculum of the course pursued by petitioner was
the same as that of One Year Diploma in Computer
Science/Computer Application.
28. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Service
Commission, however, submit that since the
12
2026:UHC:2907
advertisement requires that one should possess One Year
Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application while
the Diploma possessed by petitioner is in a different
stream/branch, therefore, she was rightly declared to be
ineligible. He submits that the Selecting Body cannot
consider any other qualification by treating it to be
equivalent to the one specified in the advertisement in
the absence of any enabling provision, therefore, the
Selecting Body had no other option but to reject the
candidature of the petitioner.
29. He further submits that in her online application,
petitioner mentioned her qualification as One Year
Diploma in Computer Science, while upon verification, the
diploma possessed by petitioner was found in a different
stream/branch, therefore, the Selecting Body had no
other option but to reject her candidature.
30. Learned counsel for the Selecting Body further
submits that petitioners have relied upon a Government
Order dated 05.05.2022 for contending that the Diploma
possessed by her is equivalent to One Year Diploma in
Computer Science/Application. He submits that the said
Government Order was issued by State of Uttar Pradesh
in 2022, therefore, it cannot have any application in State
of Uttarakhand. He submits that State of Uttarakhand has
not recognized the institution, which awarded Diploma in
favour of the petitioners.
31. This Court finds substance in the submission made
by learned counsel for the Selecting Body.
32. The Selecting Body is bound by applicable rules or
the conditions of eligibility mentioned in the
advertisement. As per the advertisement, qualification
13
2026:UHC:2907
required is ‘O’ level Diploma in Computers or One Year
Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application.
Since the advertisement is silent regarding equivalent
qualification, therefore, Selecting Body could not have
considered any qualification other than those mentioned
in the advertisement. Other qualification declared as
equivalent can be considered only when there is a
provision to that effect in the rules or the advertisement.
33. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief
Manager, Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Anit
Kumar Das, reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 897 held
that it is for the employer to determine and decide the
relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post
and it is not for courts to consider and assess the same.
The advertisement for the posts in question provides that
one must possess ‘O’ level Diploma in Computers or One
Year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application
from a recognized University or Institution. When the
advertisement or the rules prescribed a particular
qualification for appointment to a post, then anyone who
does not possess the prescribed qualification cannot be
considered for appointment.
34. In the case of Maharashtra Public Service
Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram
Warade and others, reported as 2019 (6) SCC 362,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve
into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being
on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive
re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence
will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If
language of the advertisement and the rules are clear,
14
2026:UHC:2907
the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same.
35. Similarly, in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and
others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, reported as
(2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court
that prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of
recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled
to prescribe the 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. Para 26 of the said judgment is extracted
below:
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which
has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
(L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of
Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] .
The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned
on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, 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 the 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. The decision
in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification
could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The
absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial
difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the
Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW)
No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court
was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad
Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned
Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants
did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the
decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No.
135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
36. While dealing with similar argument of higher
qualification, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
15
2026:UHC:2907
of State of Punjab and others Vs. Anita and other,
reported as (2015) 2 SCC 170, held as under:
“15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid
observations, that since the private respondents possess higher
qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be
treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts
of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the
aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private
respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into
consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid
observations in Jyoti K.K. case [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596] , permitted the aforesaid course.
The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder : (SCC p. 598,
para 6)
“6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
’10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or
in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive
orders or Standing Orders of Government as equivalent to a
qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and [Ed. : The
matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original as
well.] such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall
also be sufficient for the post [Ed. : The matter between two
asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] .'”
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher
qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the present
controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory provision
authorising the appointment of persons with higher qualifications.
37. Thus the challenge thrown by petitioner to the
orders dated 10.06.2025 and 28.07.2025, whereby her
candidature was rejected, is without any force.
38. Law is well settled that a candidate who do not
possess the qualification prescribed in the Rules, cannot
be considered for appointment. The question of
equivalence can be examined by the Selecting Body only
when the Rules contain a provision that a qualification
which is treated as equivalent to the mentioned
qualification would be treated as sufficient for
appointment. Since the rules and the advertisement are
absolutely silent on the said aspect, therefore, Selecting
Body could not have treated petitioners as eligible, when
they do not possess the qualification required by the
16
2026:UHC:2907
rules.
39. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there are other candidates who were appointed to the
post in question based on same qualification. Since
candidates who were wrongly appointed are not before
this Court and there is no challenge thrown to their
appointment, therefore, this Court declines to go into that
question at this stage. The writ petitions fail and are
dismissed.
40. No order as to costs.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 21.04.2026
Mahinder
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b089
23c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4
BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.04.27 19:08:32 +05’30’
17