Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute Essential Work Experience in Public Recruitment

Case Name: Himakshi v. Rahul Verma & Ors. with Rahul Verma v. Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 391

Date of Judgment/Order: 20 April 2026

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that a candidate who does not possess the essential qualification of five years’ work experience prescribed under the recruitment rules cannot be treated as eligible merely because she possesses a higher academic qualification such as M.Tech or has secured higher marks in the selection process. The Court held that a preferential qualification operates only among candidates who are otherwise eligible and cannot override or replace the minimum essential qualification. The Court further held that although the recruitment rules contained a power of relaxation, such power could not be presumed and had to be exercised consciously, for reasons recorded in writing; in the absence of any such recorded relaxation, the selection of an ineligible candidate was unsustainable.

Summary: The dispute arose from recruitment to the post of Computer Hardware Engineer by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. The advertisement required B.E./B.Tech in the relevant field with at least five years’ experience in computer manufacturing or maintenance from a company of repute, while preference was to be given to candidates with M.Tech in Electronics. Himakshi, who possessed B.Tech and M.Tech degrees but had only about one year’s work experience, secured the highest marks and was selected. Rahul Verma challenged her selection, claiming that she lacked the mandatory experience requirement. The Single Judge initially upheld Himakshi’s selection by relying on the power of relaxation under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, but the Division Bench set aside her appointment while also refusing to direct Rahul’s appointment, holding that none of the candidates satisfied the prescribed eligibility. The Supreme Court held that the word “minimum” in the rules made the experience requirement a threshold condition, and that preference for M.Tech could arise only after a candidate first fulfilled the essential qualifications. The Court also found that the Board had not produced any material showing that relaxation of the experience requirement had been consciously granted with recorded reasons.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. It held that Himakshi’s selection and appointment could not be sustained because she lacked the essential five years’ work experience and no valid relaxation had been granted. At the same time, the Court declined to direct appointment of Rahul Verma or any other candidate, observing that the selection process itself had not properly scrutinised the prescribed experience requirement and that no candidate had a clear and enforceable right to appointment. The Court also held that equity arising from Himakshi’s continued service and regularisation could not cure an inherent illegality in eligibility. The Board was left at liberty to issue a fresh advertisement and conduct selection strictly in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, and all pending applications were disposed of.