# CASE DETAILS ANKITA THAKUR & ORS v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 992
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-11-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023
- **Bench:** Hrishikesh Roy, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-ankita-thakur-ors-v-the-h-p-staff-selection-commission-ors-36958
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: (i) Whether relaxation in the essential
eligibility qualifi cations could be made post the last date fi xed for receipt
of applications; (ii) Essential eligibility qualifi cations specifi ed in the
Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office Assistant
(Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services,
Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014, if ambiguous to warrant
clarifi cation/relaxation; (iii) If there was a statutory regime in place to
accord recognition to an Institution, if yes, whether the clarifi catory letter/
relaxation order is in ignorance of such statutory regime and therefore,
invalid; (iv) In absence of prior consultation with the Commission, the
relaxation/clarifi catory order if was in conformity with the 2014 Rules; (v)
Whether in view of requirement for a written and computer typing test prior
to selection, possession of one year diploma in Computer Science/Computer
Application/IT from a recognised University/Institution was not an essential
eligibility qualifi cation; (vi) Candidates holding qualifi cations other than
the one prescribed by the 2014 Rules or the advertisement, though allegedly
higher, if could be considered eligible; (vii) Employer if could be forced to
fi ll all vacancies advertised; and whether it could be restrained from carrying
it forward for fi lling it as per the amended/new Rules.
Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office
Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted),
Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules,
2014 - Recruitment of Junior Offi ce Assistants- Essential eligibility
qualifi cations under the Rules - Relaxation in, after the last date for
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
receipt of the applications - Change in eligibility criteria midway -
Legality:
Held: If the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility
criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the
advertisement - And when this power is exercised, there must be wide
publicity of its exercise so that persons who are likely to benefi t by exercise
of such power may get opportunity to apply and compete - In the present
case, it is not shown that the advertisement reserved the power to relax
the essential eligibility qualifi cations specifi ed in the advertisement at
any later stage- It is not demonstrated that after the decision to relax the
eligibility criteria was taken, the same was widely publicised - Further,
the clarifi catory/relaxation order providing equivalence to certain courses
was not founded on empirical data - If there existed a statutory procedure
for granting recognition, an Institution cannot be considered recognized
dehors that procedure - Power to relax the eligibility criteria, even if it
existed, was not exercised in consonance with the settled legal principles
and it violated the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14, 16 -
Relaxation/clarifi catory order approved by the State cabinet after the last
date fi xed by the advertisements (for Post Code 447 and 556) for receipt
of applications from candidates, is not legally sustainable qua those posts,
when no opportunity was aff orded to similarly placed persons who might
have been left out to apply and compete with those candidates who, though
not eligible as per the terms of the advertisement, had applied thereunder
- Argument that requirement to hold one year diploma in the specifi ed
courses was not an essential qualifi cation, rejected - Furthermore, there
existed no provision in the extant Rules or the advertisement to treat any
other qualifi cation as higher or equivalent to the one specifi ed, claim
of candidates who could not demonstrate that they held the prescribed
essential qualifi cations, rejected - An employer cannot be forced to fi ll
all the existing vacancies under the old Rules - Directions contained in
paragraphs 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment of t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,984 of 91,171. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39984 for what follows._

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 813 : 2023 INSC 992
813
CASE DETAILS
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS.
v.
THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 09, 2023
[HRISHIKESH ROY AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: (i) Whether relaxation in the essential
eligibility qualifi cations could be made post the last date fi xed for receipt
of applications; (ii) Essential eligibility qualifi cations specifi ed in the
Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office Assistant
(Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services,
Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014, if ambiguous to warrant
clarifi cation/relaxation; (iii) If there was a statutory regime in place to
accord recognition to an Institution, if yes, whether the clarifi catory letter/
relaxation order is in ignorance of such statutory regime and therefore,
invalid; (iv) In absence of prior consultation with the Commission, the
relaxation/clarifi catory order if was in conformity with the 2014 Rules; (v)
Whether in view of requirement for a written and computer typing test prior
to selection, possession of one year diploma in Computer Science/Computer
Application/IT from a recognised University/Institution was not an essential
eligibility qualifi cation; (vi) Candidates holding qualifi cations other than
the one prescribed by the 2014 Rules or the advertisement, though allegedly
higher, if could be considered eligible; (vii) Employer if could be forced to
fi ll all vacancies advertised; and whether it could be restrained from carrying
it forward for fi lling it as per the amended/new Rules.
Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office
Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted),
Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules,
2014 - Recruitment of Junior Offi ce Assistants- Essential eligibility
qualifi cations under the Rules - Relaxation in, after the last date for
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
receipt of the applications - Change in eligibility criteria midway -
Legality:
Held: If the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility
criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the
advertisement - And when this power is exercised, there must be wide
publicity of its exercise so that persons who are likely to benefi t by exercise
of such power may get opportunity to apply and compete - In the present
case, it is not shown that the advertisement reserved the power to relax
the essential eligibility qualifi cations specifi ed in the advertisement at
any later stage- It is not demonstrated that after the decision to relax the
eligibility criteria was taken, the same was widely publicised - Further,
the clarifi catory/relaxation order providing equivalence to certain courses
was not founded on empirical data - If there existed a statutory procedure
for granting recognition, an Institution cannot be considered recognized
dehors that procedure - Power to relax the eligibility criteria, even if it
existed, was not exercised in consonance with the settled legal principles
and it violated the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14, 16 -
Relaxation/clarifi catory order approved by the State cabinet after the last
date fi xed by the advertisements (for Post Code 447 and 556) for receipt
of applications from candidates, is not legally sustainable qua those posts,
when no opportunity was aff orded to similarly placed persons who might
have been left out to apply and compete with those candidates who, though
not eligible as per the terms of the advertisement, had applied thereunder
- Argument that requirement to hold one year diploma in the specifi ed
courses was not an essential qualifi cation, rejected - Furthermore, there
existed no provision in the extant Rules or the advertisement to treat any
other qualifi cation as higher or equivalent to the one specifi ed, claim
of candidates who could not demonstrate that they held the prescribed
essential qualifi cations, rejected - An employer cannot be forced to fi ll
all the existing vacancies under the old Rules - Directions contained in
paragraphs 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment of the High Court, set
aside - Further directions issued - Appointments already made under the
fi rst advertisement (for Post Code 447) not to be disturbed - Constitution
of India - Articles 14, 16 - Service Law - Appointment/Recruitment/
Selection. [Paras 26, 27, 30, 35, 38, 39, 45]
815
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC
58; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan [2011] 11 SCR 635 : (2011)
12 SCC 85 - relied on.
Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P (2019) 17 SCC 373; Mukul Kumar
Tyagi v. State of U.P [2019] 16 SCR 1145 : (2020) 4 SCC 86; Krishna
Rai v. Banaras Hindu University (2022) 8 SCC 713; Union of India v.
Somasundaram Viswanath & Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 175; P.D. Aggarwal & Ors.
v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1987] 3 SCR 427 : (1987) 3 SCC 622; Dhananjay
Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [2008] 3 SCR 1035 : (2008) 4 SCC 171; State
of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari [2012] 7 SCR 1072 : (2012) 9 SCC 545;
Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Sudhakarrao Lavhekar
[2019] 7 SCR 94 : (2019) 6 SCC 362; State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh
Yadav (1994) 6 SCC 151; Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz
Ahmad & Ors. [2018] 14 SCR 1082 : (2019) 2 SCC 404; Mohammad Shujat
Ali & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [1975] 1 SCR 449 : (1975) 3 SCC 76;
Bank of India v. Aarya K. Babu [2019] 11 SCR 627 : (2019) 8 SCC 587;
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2021 of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in LPA No. 43 of 2021.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.7603, 7604, 7605 and 7606 of 2023.
Appearances:
Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Ms. Astha Sharma, Srisatya Mohanty,
Ms. Anju Thomas, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi,
Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Ms. Sruthi Venugopal,
Bhanu Mishra, Devvrat Singh, Ms. Muskan Surana, Ms. Vandana Sehgal,
Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Vikrant Kumar, Ms. Shruti Venugopal, Advs.
for the Appellants.
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS.
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Abhinav Mukerji, A.A.G., Anup Kumar Rattan, Advocate General,
J.S. Attri, Sr. Adv., Abhinav Mukerji, Puneet Rajta, Akshay C. Shrivastava,
Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Vinod Sharma, Vivek Narayan
Sharma, Mrs. Mahima Bhardwaj, Ms. Laksha Bhavnani, Shubham Awasthi,
Sudhanshu Khandelwal, Rajeev Kumar Jha, Rohit Sharma, Ram Kumar,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Vikas Kumar Singh, Tarun Gupta, Anmol
Mishra, Atul Kumar, Abhishek Sharma, Yatinder Chaudhary, Davinder
Singh Khurana, Manoj Rajpoot, Vikrant, Ms. Rajani Ohri Lal, Himinder
Lal, Yaduinder Lal, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. All these appeals are directed against a common judgment and order1
of the High Court2 disposing of a batch of writ petitions as well as intra-court
appeals concerning recruitment on the post of Junior Offi ce Assistant3, a
Class III (Non-gazetted) post, under the Government of Himachal Pradesh4.
There being a commonality of law and facts concerning these appeals, they
are being decided by a common judgment.
Factual Matrix
3. As these appeals arise from multiple proceedings, a disclosure of
relevant facts in a chronological order would be apposite. These facts are
set out below:
(A) On 24.12.2014, Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel,
Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III,
(Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and
Promotion Rules, 20145, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of
1
Order dated 31.12.2021
2
High Court of Himachal Pradesh
3
JOA
4
Govt.
5
2014 Rules
817
the Constitution of India6, were notifi ed with a view to have common
recruitment and promotion rules for the post of JOA in various
departments of the Government. Relevant provisions of the 2014
Rules are detailed below:
(1) Rule 7 prescribed qualifi cations for the post of JOA as
follows:
"(a) Essential Qualifi cation:
(i)
10 + 2 from a recognized Board of School
Education/University,
(ii)
One year diploma in Computer Science/ Computer
Application/ Information Technology from a
recognized University/Institution and
(iii)
Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in
English or 25 words per minute in Hindi
OR
(i)
10 + 2 from a recognized Board or School
Education/University.
(ii)
'O' or 'A' level Diploma from National Institute of
Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT)
(iii)
Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in
English or 25 words per minute in Hindi
OR
(i)
10 + 2 from a recognized Board or School
Education/University.
(ii)
Diploma in Information Technology (IT) from a
recognized ITI/Institution.
(iii)
Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in
English or 25 words per minute in Hindi
6
Constitution
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.]
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
(b) Desirable Qualifi cation(s):
Knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of
Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in
the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh."
(2) Rule 15 prescribed the mode of selection for appointment to
the post by direct recruitment as follows:
"Rule 15. Selection for appointment to the post by direct
recruitment -
Selection for appointment to the post in the case of direct
recruitment shall be made on the basis of viva-voce test,
if Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or other
recruiting authority, as the case may be, so consider
necessary or expedient by a written test or practical test,
the standard/ syllabus, etc. of which will be determined by
the Commission or other recruiting authority, as the case
may be."
(3) Rule 18 conferred power on the State Govt. to relax any of
the provisions of the Rules in following terms:
"Rule 18. Power to Relax - Where the State Govt. is of
the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it
may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing and
in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission, relax any of the provision (s) of these rules
with respect to any class or category of person (s) or
post(s)."
(B) On 13.02.2015, Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
Board7 vide Advertisement No. 30 of 2015 invited applications for
selection / appointment on 1421 post (s) of JOA (Post Code 447)
prescribing same qualifi cations as in Rule 7 of the 2014 Rules. The
last date for submission of application was 18.03.2015. However, for
residents of certain districts, it was 02.04.2015. But the date(s) were
7
Selection Board
819
extended up to 31.10.2015. Clause 4 of the general conditions in the
advertisement specifi cally provided that, "the candidate must fulfi l /
possess all the required essential educational and other qualifi cations
mentioned against each code on or before the last date fi xed for the
receipt of application forms, otherwise the candidature will be rejected
at the time of Personal Interview."
(C) As large number of applicants had done their computer course from
Private Institutes, the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. was
requested to inform:
(i) whether a candidate could be considered eligible if he has
certifi cate / diploma from any registered Institute, whether
operating within or outside the State;
(ii) the name(s) / list of registered / recognized institutes whose
diplomas / certifi cates could be considered valid for determining
eligibility for the post.
(D) In response to the above, on December 2, 2015, the Additional
Chief Secretary (Personnel) to the Govt. wrote a letter to the Selection
Board stating:
"It is informed that the provisions of the Rules regarding
essential qualifi cations are crystal clear which provides
that Diploma in Computer Science, Computer Application,
Information Technology from a recognized University/
Institution/ITI OR "O" Or "A" level diploma from National
Institute of Electronics and Information Technology
(NIELIT) only are required and the question of registered/
unregistered institution does not arise. As regard the
information on point-II, the clarifi cation can be obtained
by you from the Education Department or IT Department."
(E) The above stand was reiterated in letter dated February 25, 2016.
However, as list of registered / recognized institutes, whose diplomas
/ certifi cates were valid / recognized for determining eligibility to the
post, was not available, the Commission wrote a letter to the Director of
Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, marking its copies to Additional
Chief Secretary (Education), Govt., Director IT, Govt. and Secretary,
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.]
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, for a list of recognized
institutions / institutes.
(F) Pursuant to the correspondences above, the Directorate of
Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, vide letter dated
27.05.2017, provided a list of institutions recognized by Himachal
Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board8, Dharamshala, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh.
(G) In between, candidature of several candidates was rejected for not
possessing essential qualifi cations as prescribed by the 2014 Rules.
Aggrieved by rejection of their candidature, some of these candidates
preferred Original Applications9 (for short O.A.) before the Tribunal10,
wherein an interim order was passed on 30.06.2017. The operative
portion of which is extracted below:
"All the applicants are 10+2. However, the nomenclatures
of the one-year diploma held by them in Computer is
not in consonance with the nomenclature of the diploma
mentioned in the aforesaid education qualifications.
However, prima facie, it is made out that they are holding
one year diploma in computer. In such circumstances,
there shall be a direction in the interim to the Respondent
Commission to permit the applicants, who admittedly have
already appeared in the written/Typing Test, to appear in
the interview, provisionally. However, their result shall
not be declared and instead kept in a sealed cover till the
matter with regard to equivalence of the diploma held
by them with the diploma required as per the aforesaid
educational qualifi cations is considered and decided by
the newly added Respondent No.2- State, which shall be
done as expeditiously as possible but within the reasonable
time frame."
8
Takniki Board
9
O.A. Nos.2830, 2989, 2994, 2998, 3009 and 3026 of 2017
10 Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal
821
(H) In deference to the above order, the Commission sought directions
/ clarifi cations / guidance from the Govt., inter alia, on the following
issues:
(1) Whether the diplomas possessed by those applicants
equivalent to the diploma required by the Rules.
(2) Whether diploma / certifi cate obtained from private Institutes,
regarding which there was no information about their recognition,
could be considered as one from a recognized University /
Institute.
(I) Pursuant to that, the Commission was informed about the Govt.'s
decision dated 21.08.2017, which was in the following terms:
"(1) All such candidates having one year Diploma in
Computer or higher qualifi cation in Computer Science/
Application/IT from any private Institution like from
Society under Societies Act, Rashtriya Saksharta Mission
IT programme/Skill Development Programme etc. be
considered for fi nal selection subject to having successfully
passed their skill test i.e. Typing Test on Computer and after
having obtained their undertaking/ declaration certifying
that they had attended the classes/ diploma course by
attending the classes regularly.
(2) That the Computer Science is not limited to the specifi c
nomenclature of Diploma prescribed in the R&P Rules,
as such, the Diploma in Computer and other Higher
Qualifi cations belonging to Computer Science/ application
irrespective of their nomenclature be also considered
for fi nal selection subject to having successfully passed
their skill test i.e. Typing Test on Computer and after
having their undertaking/declaration certifying that they
had attended the classes/diploma course by attending
the classes regularly. There may be instance where
certifi cates are issued instead of diploma, in such cases,
the Commission is to ascertain and ensure that subjects
studied are at par with one year Diploma course in
Computer Science/ Application/lT.
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.]
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
(3) The date of personal interview of the candidate
concerned in the instant case be treated as valid date for
evaluation/ consideration/ acceptance of his/ her diploma/
essential qualifi cation.
(4) With regard to educational qualifi cation, as informed
during the meeting, the Commission has sought clarifi cation
of equivalence in some cases from the concerned authorities,
therefore, the Commission need to proceed further in
accordance with the clarifi cation/ decision obtained from
the State Level Board of Equivalence Committee / H.P.
Board of School Education by accepting the qualifi cation
of such candidate(s) for his job if that is found equivalent
to 10+2 and valid for pursuing higher studies."
(J) As a result of the above decision, many candidates who, as per the
2014 Rules, were not eligible, came within the zone of consideration
and as such included in the select list, resulting in ouster of such
candidates who, though lower on merit, were otherwise eligible as
per the 2014 Rules. Therefore, some of those ousted candidates laid a
challenge to the merit list before the Tribunal through O.A. No. 5543
of 2017 which, consequent to abolition of the Tribunal, came to be
transferred to the High Court and was registered as Writ Petition No.
34 of 2019. Notably, though O.A. No. 5543 of 2017 was fi led after
declaration of the fi nal select list, only three or four selected candidates
were initially impleaded as opposite parties.
(K) While the recruitment / selection exercise under the Advertisement
dated 13.02.2015 was ongoing, a fresh Advertisement No. 32-3/2016,
dated 18.10.2016, was issued by the Commission inviting applications
for another set of 1156 posts of JOA (IT) (Post Code 556) with the
same qualifi cations as prescribed in the 2014 Rules.
(L) At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that, broadly, two
sets of cases cropped up from the recruitment exercise for Post Code
447, namely,
(i) O.A. Nos. 2830; 2989; 2994; 2998; 3009; and 3026 of 2017,
which came to be renumbered as Writ Petition Nos. 2253; 2289;
823
2290; 2388; 2394; and 7681 of 2020 before the High Court after
abolition of the Tribunal. These cases were at the instance of
candidates whose candidature was rejected for not possessing
qualifi cations as prescribed by the 2014 Rules.
(ii) O.A. No. 5543 of 2017, fi led on 13.10.2017, which, upon
transfer to the High Court, came to be registered as Writ
Petition No. 34 of 2019 before the High Court. This was by
those candidates who were not placed in the select list. Their
claim was that the relaxation order dated 21.08.2017 resulted
in inclusion of ineligible candidates and, therefore, they were
ousted from the merit list. In this O.A. No. 5543 of 2017), the
relief(s) sought were:
(i) That clarifi cation dated 21.08.2017 and Offi ce Order
dated 18.09.2017 be quashed and set aside; and
(ii) That Commission be directed to prepare a merit list
from amongst those candidates who possess essential and
minimum qualifi cation as mentioned in Advertisement No.
30 of 2015, dated 13.02.2015, and make recommendation
accordingly.
(M) As in between, another Advertisement (i.e., for Post Code 556) was
issued, the State Government vide letter dated 19.03.2018 directed the
Commission to apply the clarifi cation issued on 21.08.2017 for Post
Code 556 as well. The relevant portion of the letter dated 19.03.2018
is extracted below:
"l am directed to refer to your letters No. HPSSC-C(2)-970/16
dated 01-01-2018 & 16-02-2018 on the subject cited above
and to say that since the posts of Junior Offi ce Assistant
(IT), Class-III (Non-Gazetted) have been advertised under
diff erent post codes i.e., Post Code 447 and 556 but are to be
fi lled up under one set of common Recruitment & Promotion
Rules for the post and as such carry one or similar cadre,
it has been decided that the clarifi cation dated 21-08-2017,
issued by this department on the directions of Hon'ble
Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in respect of
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.]
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Post Code 447, be also implemented in the on-going process
under Post Code 556, being recruitment for the same post
with similar provisions of rules. However, the clarifi cation/
instructions dated 21-08-2017 are under challenge before
the Hon'ble Court, as such, its implementation will be
subject to fi nal outcome of Hon'ble Court orders so passed
in case of post code 447 in the pending matters."
(N) The above decision of the State Government gave rise to another
set of litigation (i.e., Writ Petition No. 7585 of 2019) filed by
candidates desirous of selection strictly as per the 2014 Rules. Whereas
candidates who sought benefi t of the relaxation directed vide letter
dated 19.03.2018 fi led another set of petitions. This latter bunch of
petitions were allowed by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court.
Against which, the Commission preferred an intra-court appeal before
a Division Bench of the High Court.
(O) At this stage, it be clarifi ed that despite request to apply the
relaxation accorded for Post Code 447 on Post Code 556 as well,
the select list for Post Code 556 was prepared strictly in accordance
with the 2014 Rules, because in O.A. No. 2644 of 2018, which later
came to be registered as Writ Petition No. 7585 of 2019, the Tribunal,
vide order dated 16.08.2018, had allowed declaration of results in the
following terms:
"In the facts and circumstances, materials on record and
interest of justice, subject to keeping fi fteen posts of Junior
Offi ce Assistant vacant for the applicants and fi nal outcome
of the original application, respondent no. 3-Commission
shall be free to declare the result of the process for
recruitment to the post of Junior Offi ce Assistants."
The above order was assailed before the High Court through Writ
Petition No. 1964 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated
28.08.2018 in the following terms:
"In this background we clarify that the appointments to
the posts of Junior Offi ce Assistant (Code 556) shall be
strictly in accordance with the Common Recruitment &
825
Promotion Rules for the posts of Junior Offi ce Assistant
(Information Technology), Class-Ill (Non-gazetted) in
various Departments of Himachal Pradesh Government,
as also Advertisement No. 32-3/2016 and not in terms of
communication, dated 19th March 2018."
A review of the order dated 28.08.2018 was sought, which was
decided on 05.11.2018 in the following terms:
"Be that as it may, as the matter is sub judice before the
learned Tribunal and the Committee which has submitted its
report on 21.08.2017, has been so constituted by the learned
Tribunal, its recommendations, can be looked into by the
learned Tribunal uninfl uenced by any observation made by
this Court in the perspective of the Common Recruitment
& Promotion Rules, in the backdrop of the controversy
involved in the application before it."
(P) In between, another O. A. No. 7397 of 2018 was fi led before the
Tribunal praying that persons holding qualifi cations other than the
one prescribed be not considered for selection. On this application, an
order dated 21.12.2018 was passed requiring the Commission to make
selections against Post Code 556 strictly as per 2014 Rules.
(Q) The order of the Tribunal dated 21.12.2018 was challenged
before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 161 of 2019. Therein, on
11.01.2019, an interim order was passed in the following terms:
"Meanwhile the operation of the impugned order dated
21.12.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 7397 of 2018 shall
remain stayed. However, the Staff Selection Commission
shall only allow the eligible candidates to participate in
the process."
(R) In the light of various interim orders, after carrying out the
selection process, the Commission declared result of Post Code 556 on
23.02.2019 thereby recommending 596 candidates only. While doing
so, candidature of several candidates, who were found ineligible under
the 2014 Rules, was rejected.
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.]
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
(S) The candidates who were rejected as ineligible approached the
Tribunal. On 26.02.2019, the Tribunal, in O.A. No. 677 of 2019 (later
registered as Writ Petition No. 20 of 2019), directed status quo with
regard to appointments pursuant to the declared result for Post Code
556.
(T) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 26.02.2019, a group
of selected candidates fi led Writ Petition No. 629 of 2019 before the
High Court. On 29.08.2019, Writ Petition Nos. 161 of 2019 and 629
of 2019 were fi nally decided, whereby Writ Petition No. 161 of 2019,
fi led by candidates claiming to possess qualifi cations higher than
prescribed, was dismissed; and Writ Petition No. 629 of 2019 fi led
against the interim order dated 26.02.2019 was allowed.
(U) The order dated 29.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 161 of
2019 and 629 of 2019 was subjected to a Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 45 of 2021, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
15.11.2021. In these circumstances, selection / recruitment for Post
Code 556, under the Advertisement dated 18.10.2016, was carried out
strictly in accordance with the 2014 Rules. And 531 posts advertised
for Post Code 556 remained unfi lled.
(V) There was another petition, namely, writ Petition No.2246 of 2019,
fi led by candidates who were excluded from consideration though they
held equivalent qualifi cations for Post Code 556. Here, an interim order
was passed directing that any appointment against Post Code 556 shall
be subject to the orders passed in that petition.
(W) On 06.12.2019, the State Government directed the Commission
to treat the recruitment process for Post Code 556 concluded. It also
requested the Commission to re-advertise the unfi lled posts and
carry out recruitment as per new Common Recruitment & Promotion
Rules of the year 2020, which prescribed the essential qualifi cations
as follows:
"(a) ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION(S):
(i) Should have passed 10+2 from a recognized Board of
School Education /University.
OR
827
Matriculation from recognized Board of School Education
with one/two year's Diploma/Certifi cate from an Industrial
Training Institute (ITI) in Information Technology
Enabled Sectors (ITES) as notifi ed by Director General
of Employment & Training (Govt. of India) from time to
time or three years Diploma in Computer Engineering /
Computer Science/ IT from Polytechnic as approved by All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)."
(X) Pursuant thereto, on 21.09.2020, a fresh advertisement No. 362/2020 was issued by the Commission inviting applications for the
post of Junior Offi ce Assistant-JOA (IT) (Post Code 817).
(Y) On issuance of fresh advertisement, in Writ Petition No. 2246 of
2019, following interim order was passed:
"Pursuant to Advertisement No. 36-2/2020 dated
21.09.2020, issued by respondent-HPSSC for the post of
Junior Offi ce Assistant-JOA (IT), the respondent-Himachal
Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur is permitted
to proceed with the recruitment process, however, the fi nal
result shall not be announced without permission of this
Court. Applications stand disposed of."
Summary of the Litigation before the High Court
4. A conspectus of the narration above would indicate that litigation
emanated from three successive advertisements issued by the Selection
Board/ Commission inviting applications for the post of JOA (IT). The fi rst
advertisement is dated 13.02.2015 for 1421 posts (i.e., Post Code 447). The
second is dated 18.10.2016 for 1156 posts (i.e., Post Code 556); and the
third is dated 21.09.2020 for 1869 posts (i.e., Post Code 817).
5. Under the fi rst advertisement for Post Code 447, the advertised
posts were fi lled with the aid of the order dated 21.08.2017, which relaxed
the advertised eligibility conditions. The litigation therein was initiated by
two sets of candidates. One set comprised of those whose candidature got
rejected because they failed to meet the eligibility criteria prescribed in the
advertisement and the 2014 Rules. The other set comprised of those candidates
who were aggrieved by relaxation of the eligibility criteria as it expanded the
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.]
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
zone of consideration and thereby reduced their chance of selection. They,
therefore, questioned the validity of the order of relaxation dated 21.08.2017
as also the selection made thereunder. The challenge laid by them was to
the eff ect that once the 2014 Rules prescribed the essential qualifi cations,
and the advertisement prescribed the same essential qualifi cations without
reserving any power to relax the same at any later stage, how could there
be a relaxation of these prescribed essential qualifi cations. Their prayer,
therefore, was that the select list must comprise of only such candidates
who hold the prescribed minimum eligibility qualifi cations by the last date
for receipt of the application under the advertisement. Such a challenge was
laid through Writ Petition No. 34 of 2019, which was originally fi led before
the Tribunal as O.A. No. 5543 of 2017.
6. In respect of recruitment against the second advertisement for Post
Code 556, challenge was laid by those who either held qualifi cations at
variance from the one prescribed, or had certifi cate(s) / diploma(s) from
such institutes that were not considered recognized. Their challenge was
premised on the relaxation granted earlier in connection with the exercise
under the fi rst advertisement for Post Code 447. Their case was that once
relaxation to the eligibility conditions prescribed in the 2014 Rules was
allowed qua the fi rst advertisement, the recruitment to the same post,
advertised as Post Code 556, under the same set of Rules, must be subject
to same relaxation. These candidates, therefore, challenged rejection of
their candidature and prayed that the merit-list be re-drawn by treating
their candidature as valid.
7. In respect of the third advertisement dated 21.09.2020, the
challenge was confi ned to 531 posts that were carried forward as unfi lled
vacancies notifi ed under the second advertisement for Post Code 556. In
this category of cases, the claim was that vacant posts of JOA, advertised
as Post Code 556, should not have been left unfi lled as eligible candidates
were available had the benefi t of the relaxation been provided. They,
therefore, claimed that those carry forward posts, now advertised as Post
Code 817, be segregated and fi lled as part of the second advertisement
by taking into consideration those candidates who would be eligible by
virtue of the relaxation.
829
Findings / Observations of the High Court in the impugned
judgment
8. The High Court found / held / observed:
(i) The essential qualifi cations prescribed in the 2014 Rules as
"one year diploma in Computer Science / Computer Application
/ Information Technology from a recognized University /
Institution" is ambiguous and creates confusion, fi rstly, because
expression "recognized University / Institution" is not defi ned,
and, secondly, diploma qualifi cation may be held under diff erent
nomenclatures. The High Court held that though there could
be no dispute regarding a recognized University but as regards
the authority competent to recognize an institution to award a
diploma, there is no clarity. Therefore, the decision to relax the
essential qualifi cations dated 21.08.2017 was within the powers
of the State Government conferred by Rule 18 of the 2014 Rules.
Hence, it was rightly applied on the recruitment exercise carried
out under the fi rst advertisement dated 13.02.2015.
(ii) Computer Science / Information Technology are subjects of
wide amplitude and are admissible to diff ering nomenclatures
and cannot be restricted to the one found in the 2014 Rules /
Advertisement. Thus, in absence of any clarity as to the kind
of curricula required to obtain the required diploma / certifi cate
to become eligible, the decision of the State Government dated
21.08.2017 cannot be faulted, particularly, when there is no
clarity as to the authority competent to accord recognition. While
holding so, the High Court took note of the essential qualifi cations
prescribed in the 2020 Rules for the post of JOA (IT), which were
more specifi c as regards the authority competent to recognize.
(iii) Advent of computerization and wide use of information
technology has caused a sense of urgency for appointment(s)
on the posts advertised across various departments of the State
Government. This is refl ected by successive advertisements for
the posts. In that scenario, to meet the exigency, if an exercise to
constitute an equivalence committee was undertaken pursuant to
a judicial order of the Tribunal dated 30.06.2017, which was not
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.]
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
assailed by any of the writ petitioners, departure, if any, from the
2014 Rules cannot be faulted. Otherwise also, where rules are
ambiguous, and it may take time to amend the rules, relaxation
and clarifications are permissible as part of administrative
exigency.
(iv) There is nothing on record to infer that action of the
State Government / HPSSC was actuated by extraneous
consideration(s) or lack of bona fi de(s).
(v) The petitioners could not substantiate that anyone or more
of the selected persons obtained the requisite qualifi cations after
the cut-off date.
Impugned Decision of the High Court
9. In light of the fi ndings / observations noticed above, the High Court
dismissed Writ Petition No. 34 of 2019 which questioned the relaxation
order; and upheld the process of selection and appointment against Post
Code 447. Consequent to the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 34 of 2019, other
writ petitions, namely, numbered 2253, 2289, 2290, 2388, 2394 and 7681 of
2020, which were fi led for consideration of candidates who benefi ted from
the relaxation order, were dismissed as infructuous.
10. Writ petitions seeking relaxation in the eligibility conditions for the
second advertisement (i.e., for Post Code 556) in terms provided for Post
Code 447, were disposed of by directing that same relaxation be accorded
for Post Code 556 as accorded for Post Code 447. In consequence, the High
Court, in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment, directed:
"33. Thus, the HPSSC is directed to re-cast the merit list for JOA 556
by including all categories of candidate as was done for JOA 447 on
the basis of decision of Government dated 21.8.2017/ 18.9.2017 and
further made applicable to JOA 556 vide communication 19.3.2018
except the candidates with higher qualifi cation, who have already been
held ineligible vide judgment dated 29.8.2019 of a Division Bench of
this Court in CWP 161/2019. These selections for JOA 556 shall be
made by taking into account the entire number of vacancies advertised
for JOA 556 and the decision of the Government/HPSSC to close the
selection procedure for JOA 556 is set aside and quashed.
831
34. Since the Common R&P Rules stand amended by 2020 Rules and
the cause of persistent confusion for the time being appears to have
been removed, as a necessary consequence selection for JOA 817
shall take place in accordance with 2020 Rules, however, the selection
process shall not include the selection for posts which were left over
from advertised posts of JOA 556 as the said posts have already been
directed to be fi lled through selection process of JOA 556."
11. The resultant eff ect of the above directions would be that for
recruitment against Post Code 556, candidates who, but for the relaxation
dated 21.08.2017, were ineligible under the 2014 Rules, were to be
treated eligible and the merit list redrawn accordingly. Not only that,
531 posts of Post Code 556, which remained unfi lled, and, therefore,
carried forward, and re-advertised on 21.09.2020, were to be segregated
and fi lled in terms of the direction above. In consequence, the number of
posts advertised under the advertisement dated 21.09.2020 were to get
reduced to that extent. However, as per the decision of the High Court,
the candidates who professed holding qualifi cations higher than the one
prescribed were not to get any benefi t as that issue already stood concluded
vide judgment and order of the High Court dated 29.08.2019, passed in
Writ Petition No.161 of 2019, against which SLP (C) No.45 of 2021 was
dismissed by this Court.
Appeals Before This Court
12. (A) Arising out of SLP (C) No. 730 of 2022:
This appeal questions the direction given in paragraph 33 of the
impugned judgment. The appellants herein claim that they hold the requisite
eligibility qualifi cations prescribed by the 2014 Rules as well as the
advertisement; they participated in the recruitment exercise for Post Code
556 and were placed in the merit-list; if candidates who were otherwise not
eligible, but for the relaxation, are permitted to be considered, as directed
in paragraph 33, the merit-list might have to be re-drawn and they may
be ousted and replaced by those who, otherwise, were ineligible. These
appellants have, therefore, prayed that the direction given by the High
Court in paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment be quashed and the earlier
merit-list be not disturbed.
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION
COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.]
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
In this appeal, intervention / impleadment application(s) (i.e., I.A.
Nos. 30862 of 2022; 26627 of 2022; and 73507 of 2022) have been fi led
by such candidates who were to benefi t by the direction given in paragraph
33 of the impugned judgment.
Another I.A. No 14524 of 2022 has been fi led for impleading parties
who had put in appearance through various intervention applications. Yet
another I.A. No. 5062 of 2022 has been fi led to bring on record:
(a) a copy of letter issued by the Director of Higher Education, Govt.
of Himachal Pradesh;
(b) copy of the order of the High Court dated 29.08.2019 passed in
Writ Petition Nos. 629 of 2019 and 161 of 2019; and
(c) copy of the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by this Court in SLP (C)
No. 45 of 2021 whereby Special Leave Petition preferred against the
order of the High Court dated 29.08.2019 was dismissed.
(B) Arising out of SLP (C) No. 729 of 2022:
This appeal is also at the instance of those candidates who were
considered and selected under the second advertisement for Post Code
556. They are, therefore, similarly aggrieved as the appellants of appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No. 730 of 2022.
In this appeal, too, an Impleadment Application No. 15047
of 2022 has been fi led to bring on record parties who had put in
appearance through various intervention applications.
(C) Arising out of SLP (C) No.