CASE DETAILS v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & Ors.

1 Order dated 31.12.2021 2 High Court of Himachal Pradesh 3 JOA 4 Govt. 5 2014 Rules ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 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) (ii) 10 + 2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University, 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) (ii) (iii) (i) (ii) (iii) 10 + 2 from a recognized Board or School Education/University. ‘O’ or ‘A’ level Diploma from National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi OR 10 + 2 from a recognized Board or School Education/University. Diploma in Information Technology (IT) from a recognized ITI/Institution. Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi 6 Constitution 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 ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 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, 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 ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 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. 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; ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 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 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 & ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 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. 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 ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 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. 36- 2/2020 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 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. ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 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 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. ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 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. 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. 4321 of 2022: This appeal is by the writ petitioners of Writ Petition No. 34 of 2019 before the High Court. They are aggrieved by dismissal of their writ petition which sought: (a) quashing of the relaxation order dated 21.08.2017; and (b) a direction upon HPSSC to prepare the merit-list by including only those candidates who possess essential minimum qualifi cations as specifi ed in advertisement No. 30 of 2015 dated 13.02.2015. ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 833 Appellants herein are those candidates who failed to fi nd their name in the select list prepared after the recruitment exercise under the fi rst advertisement for Post Code 447. In this appeal, I.A. No. 56457 of 2022 has been fi led for bringing on record copy of the order dated 29th March 2022 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 113 of 2019 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed by a Single Bench of the High Court. Another I.A. No. 100627 of 2022 has been fi led by a bunch of candidates who claim to have possessed qualifi cations higher than the one specifi ed in the Advertisement for Post Code 447. According to them, they hold Degree instead of Diploma and Degree being higher than Diploma, they were eligible. Yet another I.A. No. 188852 of 2022 has been fi led to bring on record: (i) An RTI query report dated 02.07.2022. This is to the eff ect that the relaxation order dated 21.08.2017 was not published in any Newspaper, E-Gazette or Offi cial website; and (ii) A chart containing reasons as to why some of the selected candidates were not qualifi ed/ eligible for consideration against Post Code 447. Note: It is not clear whether this chart was ever placed before the High Court. (D) Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9977 of 2022: This appeal is by those candidates who participated under the second advertisement and got selected for appointment against Post Code 556. They are aggrieved by the direction contained in paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment. They apprehend that if the merit-list is re-drawn by including those who were otherwise ineligible under the 2014 Rules, they may go out of the merit-list. Their case is thus identical to the appellants in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 730 of 2022. In this appeal, I.A. No. 77624 of 2022 has been fi led to bring on record an application fi led by one of the candidates under the advertisement for Post Code 556 to initiate contempt proceeding against the State for non- compliance of the directions contained in the impugned judgment of the High Court. 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. (E) Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17676 of 2022: This appeal is by those who have applied under the third advertisement dated 21.09.2020 qua Code 817. Their grievance is that if the direction given in paragraphs 33 and 34 of impugned judgment is implemented, the number of posts advertised would get reduced thereby aff ecting their chances of selection. Interim Orders passed during pendency of the proceedings:

13. In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 730 of 2022, on 12.01.2022, an interim order was passed putting in abeyance the direction contained in paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment. Likewise, in SLP (C) No. 17676 of 2022, an interim order was passed on 30.09.2022 putting in abeyance the direction contained in paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants; the learned counsel for the respondents / Intervenors and the Advocate General of the State of Himachal Pradesh, who appeared for the State and the Commission. Submissions on behalf of Appellants

15. Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, who led the arguments on behalf of the appellants in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 730 of 2022, 729 of 2022 and 9977 of 2022, inter alia, submitted: (i) The fi rst and second advertisements (i.e., dated 13.02.2015 and 18.10.2016) were issued during currency of the 2014 Rules. The 2014 Rules prescribed eligibility qualifi cations in unequivocal terms and the advertisements specifi ed the same qualifi cations with a clear stipulation that candidates applying thereunder must hold the requisite qualifi cations by the last date for receipt of the application. The last date for receipt of application under the fi rst advertisement was 31.10.2015, and under the second advertisement it was 17.11.2016. Both the advertisements did not reserve the power to relax the eligibility criteria at any later stage. In these circumstances, the relaxation accorded on 21.08.2017, after the last date for receipt of the applications, was illegal. (ii) The High Court erred in observing that relaxation was necessitated because, (a) there could be confusion as to the true import of the ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 835 expression “recognized University / Institution” and (b) there could be institutions conducting the same course under a diff erent nomenclature. These observations of the High Court were in ignorance of the statutory regime in place since 1986 vide Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board Act, 198611 and the Regulations framed thereunder, set out below: Section 2 of the 1986 Act provides: “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “affi liated institution” means an institution affi liated to the Board in respect of any course or courses of study in accordance with the provisions of the Act or regulations made thereunder; (b) “Board” means the Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board established under section 3…………….; (e) “certifi cate” means the certifi cate awarded by the Board to a person for successfully completing in an affi liated institution such courses of study as may from time to time be prescribed by regulations …………; (g) “diploma” means a diploma awarded by the Board to a person for successfully completing in an affi liated institution such courses of study as may from time to time be prescribed by regulations ……….; (i) “industrial training” means training imparted to students in Industrial Training Institutions; (j) “institution” means institution imparting technical education and industrial training ………..; (s) “technical education” means the education imparted to students in the technical institutions;” Section 12 of the 1986 Act specifi es functions and duties of the Board as follows: 11 1986 Act 836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. “12. Functions and duties of the Board.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder, the functions and duties of the Board shall be- (i) to affi liate institutions and prescribe courses of study and instructions leading to examinations conducted by it; (ii) to prescribe standards for buildings and equipment of affi liated institutions; (iii) to prescribe educational qualifi cations and other standards for the members of the staff of the affi liated institutions; (iv) to prescribe educational qualifi cations for admission of students to affi liated institutions; (v) to prescribe the manner of admission of students to affi liated institutions; (vi) to admit candidates to examinations conducted by it; (vii) to conduct examinations for promotion from lower to higher classes and also for awarding certifi cates and diplomas; (viii) to publish results of examinations conducted by it; (ix) to grant certifi cates and diplomas to students who have completed the prescribed course of study in an affi liated institution and have passed the examinations conducted by it; (x) to co-operate with other authorities and bodies in such manner and for such purposes as may be necessary for giving eff ect to the provisions of this Act; (xi) to advise the State Government on co-ordinated development of technical education and training regarding the same; (xii) to do all other such acts and things as may be necessary for the proper discharge of its functions under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder; and ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 837 (xiii) to carry out such other duties as may be imposed upon it under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder” Section 13 of the 1986 Act confers power on the Board in following terms: “13. Power of the Board.- (1) The Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, have all such powers as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions and the performance of its duties under this Act and rules or regulations made thereunder. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, the Board shall have the powers- (i) after giving the candidate a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to cancel an examination, or withhold the result of an examination, of a candidate, or to disallow him from appearing at any future examination who is found by it to be guilty of- (a) using unfair means in the examination; (b) making any incorrect statement or suppressing material information or fact in the application form for admission to the institution or to the examination; (c) fraud or impersonation at the examination; (d) securing admission to the examination in contravention of the rules governing admission to such examination; or (e) any act of gross indiscipline in the course of the examination; (ii) to deduct marks at any examination of any candidate found by it to be guilty of any act of indiscipline in the course of the examination; 838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. (iii) to cancel the result of an examination of any candidate found by it to be guilty of all or any of the acts mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of clause (i) or for any bona fi de error of the Board in the declaration of the result: Provided that the result of an examination shall not be cancelled on the ground of a bona fi de error of the Board, after the expiry of 90 days from the date of announcement of the result of the examination; (iv) to prescribe fees for the examinations conducted by it and provide for the manner of their realisation; (v) to refuse affi liation of an institution- (a) which does not fulfi l, or is not in a position to fulfi l or does not come up to the standards for staff , instruction, equipment or buildings laid down by the Board in this behalf, or (b) which does not or is not willing to abide by the conditions of affi liation laid down by the Board in this behalf; (vi) after giving the institution concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to withdraw affi liation of an institution not able to adhere to or make a provision for standards of staff , instruction equipment or buildings laid down by the Board, or on its failure to observe the conditions of affi liation to the satisfaction of the Board; (vii) to call for reports from the heads of affi liated institutions in respect of any act done in contravention of the rules or regulations or decisions, instructions or directions of the Board, and take suitable action for the enforcement of the rules or regulations or decisions, instructions or directions of the Board, in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations; ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 839 (viii) to inspect an affi liated institution for the purpose of ensuring due observance of the prescribed courses of study and to ensure that facilities for instructions are duly provided and availed of; and (ix) to fi x the maximum number of students that may be admitted to courses of study in an affi liated institution. (3) The decision of the Board in all matters mentioned in sub- sections (1) and (2) shall be fi nal.” Section 15 of the 1986 Act confers power on the Board to make regulations in following terms: “15. Power to make regulations:- (1) The Board may, for carrying out the purposes of this Act, make regulations consistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules framed thereunder and submit the same for approval of the State Government. The State Government may approve, modify or vary the regulations. The regulations, as approved by the State Government, shall be published in the Offi cial Gazette and shall take eff ect from the date of publication, and where a date has been specifi ed from that date. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, the regulations may provide for- (a) the appointment, constitution, powers and duties of the committees and sub-committees constituted under this Act; (b) the manner and conditions of conferment of certifi cate and diplomas; (c) the conditions for affi liations of institution; (d) the courses of study to be prescribed for certifi cate and diploma examinations; (e) the conditions under which candidates shall be admitted to the examination of the Board and shall be eligible for certifi cates and diplomas; 840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. (f) the fees for admission to the examinations of the Board and the manner of their realisation; (g) the conduct of examinations; (h) the appointment of examiners, moderators, collators, scrutinizers, tabulators, centre inspectors, superintendents of centres and invigilators, and their duties and powers in relation to the Board’s examinations, and the rates of their remuneration; (i) standards for buildings, including land appurtenant thereto, the equipment and apparatus necessary for institutions seeking affi liation; (j) publication of results of examinations conducted by the Board; (k) the minimum educational and other qualifi cations for admission of students to an affi liated institution; (l) admission of students to affi liated institutions; (m) the inspection of affi liated institutions with a view to ensuring due observance of the prescribed courses of study and that facilities for instruction are duly provided and availed of; (n) the conditions under which a candidate may be disallowed admission to the examination of the Board in courses of study in an affi liated institution; (o) withholding or cancelling results of an examination conducted by the Board and cancelling an examination conducted by it in respect of any candidate; (p) the circumstances under which affiliation of an institution may be withdrawn or refused; (q) inspection of a centre; and (r) any other matter which under this Act or rules made thereunder is to be or may be prescribed by regulations.” ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. v. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 841 Section 31 of the Act provides that fi rst Regulations shall be made by the State. It provides: “31. First regulations of the Board.- (1) The First Regulations shall be made by the State Government and they shall be deemed to have been made by the Board and continue in force until altered or modifi ed by the Board. (2) The regulations made under sub-section (1) shall not take eff ect until these have been published in the Offi cial Gazette” In exercise of its statutory powers, the Takniki Board framed and notifi ed Himachal Takniki Shiksha Board, Regulations 199312 under Section 15 read with Section 31 of the 1986 Act. Regulation 6(5) of the 1993 Regulations provided for conferment of Certifi cates and Diplomas while Regulation 7 prescribed the conditions for affi liation of the Institution. Further, Regulation 6 (5) provided that: “All diplomas and certifi cates issued by the Board, NCVT and SCVT will stand automatically recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the purposes of employment in Subordinate services.” By placing reliance on the aforesaid statutory provisions and regulations, it was urged that the State was under an obligation to bring the statutory regime to the notice of the High Court so as to remove doubts, if any, about the true import of the phrase “recognized institution” as it occurs in the 2014 Rules. (iii) In addition to the above, the State had notifi ed Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Regulatory Commission) Act, 201013 which established a Regulatory Commission and prescribed a regulatory framework for ensuring appropriate standard of admission, teaching, examination, research and 12 1993 Regulations 13 2010 Act 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. protection of interest of students in Private Educational Institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. (iv) Further, vide letter dated 23.05.2017, the Director of Higher Education provided a list of Institutes recognised by the Takniki Board. Even RTI noting records that vide letter dated 14.06.2017 the Director, Technical Education had provided details of all such institutes. Thus, there was neither any ambiguity in the 2014 Rules nor any doubt about the recognised institutes. Hence, no relaxation / clarifi cation was required. (v) The relaxation order dated 21.08.2017 was a colourable exercise of powers to push forward a list of unrecognised institutes having support of powerful lobbies. (vi) Impugned relaxation being after the last date fi xed for receipt of the application is in teeth of the law settled by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors14. That apart, in absence of power reserved in the advertisement to relax the eligibility criteria, and there being no publicity of such relaxation, relaxation of the eligibility criteria falls foul of the law laid down by this Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan15 and Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P.16 (vii) Further, a candidate by self-declaration cannot certify his own qualifi cation as equivalent to the one specifi ed. There have to be norms and guidelines for declaring a qualifi cation equivalent to meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Rules for the post. However, the Committee approved the candidature / selection of candidates on the basis of self-certifi cation which is impermissible in light of this Court’s decision in Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. State of U.P.17