The Supreme Court has held that a candidate holding a Secondary School Certificate from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) cannot automatically be treated as eligible for a government post where the applicable Recruitment Rules specifically require passing the 10th standard “under 10+2 system of education”.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered the judgment on October 6, 2026, while allowing an appeal concerning recruitment to the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber in Goa.
The Directorate of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of Goa, had issued an advertisement on November 5, 2021, for several posts, including Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber.
Under the applicable Recruitment Rules, candidates were required to have passed 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education, besides possessing a National Trade Certificate or National Apprenticeship Certificate in the relevant trade and at least five years’ practical experience in the industry.
In the written examination, the candidate whose eligibility later became disputed secured 96 marks, while the selected candidate secured 94 marks. However, during document verification, the Departmental Selection Committee found that the higher-scoring candidate did not satisfy the prescribed academic qualification and therefore treated him as ineligible. The selected candidate was subsequently placed in the final selection list.
The Bombay High Court at Goa later interfered with that decision and directed the authorities to consider the higher-scoring candidate for appointment, relying, among other things, on the recognition of his NIOS qualification.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's approach. It noted that the Recruitment Rules did not simply require a candidate to have passed the 10th standard. They specifically required the 10th standard to have been passed “under 10+2 system of education”.
The Court said:
“The question, therefore, is not whether the Secondary School Certificate issued by NIOS is a recognised qualification in general. The question is whether such qualification satisfies the specific eligibility condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post in question. The distinction is significant as the Recruitment Rules do not contain any provision treating a qualification recognised as equivalent to the 10th standard as satisfying the requirement of having passed 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education.”
The Bench further observed that courts exercising judicial review ordinarily cannot add to, alter or enlarge essential qualifications prescribed by a recruiting authority. Whether one qualification should be treated as equivalent to another is ordinarily a matter for the employer or competent expert body.
The Court also considered the technical nature of the post and noted that the prescribed qualifications formed part of the eligibility framework for a technical teaching position.
The Supreme Court held that recognition of the NIOS qualification by the Goa Board or other educational authorities could not, by itself, alter or enlarge the specific eligibility condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules.
It also rejected the argument that higher marks in the written examination could overcome the absence of an essential qualification. According to the Court, comparative merit becomes relevant only after a candidate satisfies the prescribed eligibility conditions.
The Bench expressly clarified that its conclusion was limited to the Recruitment Rules applicable to the post in question and the 2021 advertisement. It did not express any opinion regarding the validity, recognition or equivalence of NIOS qualifications for other purposes or under different Recruitment Rules.
The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court at Goa's judgment dated January 11, 2024. It also set aside the subsequent appointment made pursuant to that judgment.
The Departmental Selection Committee's decision dated March 23, 2023, finding the higher-scoring candidate ineligible and selecting the appellant, was restored. Consequently, the appellant's temporary appointment and the related memorandum dated March 24, 2023, were also restored, subject to applicable service conditions.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
