In a significant ruling on public recruitment, the Supreme Court of India has held that essential qualifications cannot be bypassed, even if a candidate performs well in selection. The Court set aside the appointment of a Computer Hardware Engineer in the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, citing lack of mandatory work experience.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a 2016 recruitment process conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education for the post of Computer Hardware Engineer. The advertisement required candidates to have a B.Tech degree along with at least five years of work experience in computer manufacturing or maintenance.
Himakshi, who topped the selection with the highest marks, had only about one year of experience. Rahul Verma, an unsuccessful candidate, challenged her appointment, arguing that she did not meet the essential eligibility criteria.
The matter went through multiple stages before reaching the Supreme Court, including conflicting findings by a Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that essential qualifications form the foundation of any recruitment process and cannot be substituted by higher academic degrees.
“The requirement of experience is a threshold condition… it cannot be diluted merely on the basis of superior academic qualifications,” the bench observed.
It further clarified that preference for higher qualifications, such as an M.Tech degree, operates only after a candidate satisfies basic eligibility conditions.
On the issue of relaxation, the Court noted that although rules allowed relaxation of experience, no such decision was recorded or exercised by the Board.
“The mere existence of a power of relaxation does not mean it has been exercised,” the Court stated, stressing that such discretion must be applied consciously and supported by written reasons.
The Court found that the recruitment process itself suffered from a fundamental flaw candidates who did not meet essential qualifications were allowed to participate.
It also noted that not only the selected candidate but even other candidates failed to strictly meet the required experience criteria in the prescribed form.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s Division Bench judgment and ruled that Himakshi’s appointment cannot be sustained in law.
At the same time, the Court declined to order Rahul Verma’s appointment, observing that participation in a flawed selection process does not create a right to appointment.
“No direction for appointment… can be issued,” the bench concluded, adding that the Board is free to initiate a fresh recruitment process in accordance with rules.
Case Details
Case Title: Himakshi v. Rahul Verma & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5942 of 2023 & 5943 of 2023
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: April 20, 2026
