Supreme Court: higher marks can't make up for not meeting a recruitment rule's eligibility condition

Allowing an appeal against a Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) judgment, the Supreme Court (Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi) held that a candidate who does not meet an essential eligibility qualification prescribed by recruitment rules cannot be made eligible merely because he scored higher marks than another candidate, or because some educational body recognises his alternative qualification generally. The dispute concerned a post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber, for which the rules required a candidate to have passed the 10th standard 'under the 10+2 system of education'. One candidate held a Secondary School Certificate from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) instead, and had scored higher marks in the written exam than the appellant.

The High Court had held NIOS-qualified candidates must be treated as meeting the requirement; the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the phrase 'under the 10+2 system of education' was a deliberate, specific part of the eligibility condition that courts could not read out of the rule, that recognition of NIOS by other authorities does not by itself amend a specific Recruitment Rule, and that comparative merit can be weighed only among candidates who already satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions. It set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the original selection.