High Court · 2025

Per cont ra, Ms. Menka Tripat hi, learned counsel appearing for t he Select ing Body subm it s t hat eligibilit y of a candidat e for appoint m ent t o a post , has t o be seen on t he last dat e of subm ission of applicat ion. She subm it s t hat t he applicat ion was subm it t ed by t he pet it ioner pursuant t o t he advert isem ent quest ion

10.11.2023, which was also t he last dat e indicat ed in t he advert isem ent for subm it t ing applicat ions, t herefore, t he subsequent am endm ent in t he Regulat ions would not support t he case of t he pet it ioner. She furt her subm it s t hat neit her t he recruit m ent rules nor t he advert isem ent in quest ion has been am ended or alt ered and t he am endm ent , which is being relied upon by t he pet it ioner was m ade by t he Ut t arakhand Board of School Educat ion in it s Regulat ions, which cannot be m ade applicable for det erm ining eligibilit y of a candidat e for appoint m ent as I nst ruct or ( Forem an) . She furt her subm it s t hat even if t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel t he pet it ioner is t aken on it s face value and t he Diplom a possessed by t he pet it ioner is t aken as I nt erm ediat e qualificat ion, t hen pet it ioner would be lacking t he second qualificat ion m ent ioned in t he advert isem ent , nam ely diplom a; she subm it s t hat diplom a possessed by t he pet it ioner, if is used for m aking good t he deficiency of I nt erm ediat e qualificat ion, t hen t he sam e diplom a possessed by t he pet it ioner cannot be relied for m eet ing t he requirem ent second condit ion t he advert isem ent . She furt her subm it s t hat qualificat ions required for appoint m ent t o a part icular post have t o be det erm ined t he em ployer according t o t he requirem ent of work; t he present case St at e Governm ent , as em ployer, has det erm ined t he eligibilit y condit ion in which I nt erm ediat e qualificat ion as well as Diplom a in Engineering are essent ial and pet it ioner t hough possesses diplom a, but he lacks I nt erm ediat e qualificat ion, which goes t o t he root of t he m at t er and t he grievance raised by t he pet it ioner against his non- select ion, t herefore, is wit hout any subst ance.

9. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by Ms. Menka Tripat hi, learned counsel appearing for t he Select ing Body. Eligibilit y for appoint m ent t o a post m ust be possessed on t he last dat e of subm ission of applicat ion. The last dat e for subm it t ing applicat ion was

10.01.2023; while, t he am endm ent m ade by Ut t arakhand Board of School Educat ion was not ified on 17.03.2025. The sam e am endm ent cannot be m ade ret rospect ively applicable t o m ake good t he deficiency in academ ic qualificat ion of t he pet it ioner.

10. Even ot herwise also, t he applicabilit y of t he am endm ent m ade by Ut t arakhand Board of School Educat ion in it s Regulat ions, t o t he ongoing select ion for t he post of I nst ruct or ( Forem en) is doubt ful, as t he eligibilit y crit eria for appoint m ent t o a post has t o be seen wit h reference t o t he relevant recruit m ent rules. The recruit m ent rules provided t hat one m ust possess I nt erm ediat e qualificat ion w it h a diplom a in Engineering. I f t he diplom a is t r eat ed as a subst it ut e for I nt erm ediat e qualificat ion, as cont ended by learned counsel for t he pet it ioner, t hen pet it ioner would be lacking second requisit e qualificat ion, nam ely Diplom a in Engineering, as one qualificat ion cannot be t he subst it ut e t wo separat e qualificat ions. Every em ploy er has a right t o det erm ine t he qualificat ion needed for appoint m ent t o a part icular post ; in t he present case, em ployer ( St at e Governm ent ) has decided t hat I nt erm ediat e qualificat ion and Diplom a in Engineering, bot h qualificat ions would be necessary for appoint m ent . Ut t arakhand Board of School Educat ion is not t he em ployer for t he post of I nst ruct or ( Forem en) ; t he pur pose for which Ut t arakhand Board of School Educat ion m ade am endm ent in it s Regulat ions is not known, t herefore, t hat am endm ent cannot ipso fact o be m ade applicable so as t o t reat t he pet it ioner as eligible for appoint m ent .

11. For t he aforesaid reasons, t he relief claim ed by t he pet it ioner in t his writ pet it ion cannot be grant ed.

12. The writ pet it ion, accordingly fails, and dism issed. No order as t o cost s.

14.11.2025 ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046 f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10381 9DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA