Himakshiv.Rahul Verma & Ors

Legal Analysis: Himakshi vs. Rahul Verma & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 391
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (Division Bench)
Judgment Author: Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Date of Decision: April 20, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 against High Court Division Bench judgment setting aside selection and appointment.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education advertised the post of Computer Hardware Engineer requiring a B.E./B.Tech with at least 5 years’ experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance, with preference for M.Tech. The selected candidate (Himakshi) had only 1 year of experience but held an M.Tech degree and secured the highest marks. The unsuccessful candidate (Rahul) challenged her selection. The Single Judge upheld her appointment, but the Division Bench set it aside, holding that neither candidate satisfied the essential experience requirement. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench, ruling that a higher qualification (M.Tech) cannot substitute for the mandatory essential qualification of 5 years’ experience. The power of relaxation under the Rules was not exercised with recorded reasons. The Court declined to grant equitable relief to the selected candidate who had served for several years, as the defect went to the root of eligibility. No direction for appointment of any other candidate was issued, and the Board was left free to issue a fresh advertisement.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Himakshi vs. Rahul Verma & Ors. (with connected appeal) Civil Appeal Nos. 5942 of 2023 and 5943 of 2023 Bench Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar Date of Decision April 20, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 391 Appeal From Judgment dated 23.04.2021 of Himachal Pradesh High Court Division Bench in LPA No. 49/2020

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Rules Involved:

• Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the Post of Computer Hardware Engineer (Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education): Rule 7 (minimum educational and other qualifications), Clause 2 preceding Rule 7 (relaxation of age and experience for otherwise well-qualified candidates), Rule 18 (power to relax any provision for reasons recorded in writing).

• Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16 (equality in public employment).

• Service Jurisprudence: Essential qualifications vs. desirable/preferential qualifications; power of relaxation.

Precedents Cited:

• Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K (2019) – Higher qualification cannot substitute for essential qualification in absence of enabling provision.

• Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan (1993) – Guidelines for relaxation: must be mentioned in advertisement, reasons recorded in proceedings.

• Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana (1977) – Equitable consideration for long service (distinguished).

• Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar (2001) – Equitable consideration (distinguished).

• Bholanath Mukherjee v. Ramakrishna Mission (2010) – Equitable consideration (distinguished).

• Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) – Equitable consideration (distinguished).

• Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) – Equitable consideration (distinguished).

3. Relevant Facts

• Advertisement (21.07.2016): One post of Computer Hardware Engineer on contract basis.

• Essential qualification: B.E./B.Tech in Electronics/Telecommunication/IT with at least 5 years’ experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance company of repute.

• Preference: M.Tech in Electronics.

• Candidates:
  Himakshi (selected): B.Tech + M.Tech; work experience ≈1 year (as Vocational Trainer in a school). Marks: 124 (written) + 28 (interview) = 152 (highest).
  Rahul (unsuccessful): B.Tech + PGDCA; experience ≈6 years (as Technical Assistant, Project Associate, etc.). Marks: 118+25=143.
  Gaurav (waitlisted): B.Tech + Diploma; experience ≈2.5 years (System Administrator). Marks: 123+28=151.

• Selection (03.10.2016): Himakshi appointed.

• Challenge: Rahul filed OA before Tribunal (later transferred to High Court as CWPOA No.136/2019).

• Single Judge order (23.09.2020): Dismissed challenge, upheld selection. Held that Rule 18 conferred power of relaxation; higher qualification and highest marks justified selection.

• Division Bench order (23.04.2021): Allowed appeal, set aside selection. Held that none of the candidates fulfilled the essential 5 years’ experience requirement; no recorded relaxation; appointment illegal.

• Supreme Court interim stay (06.05.2021): Himakshi continued in service and was regularised in 2019.

• Supreme Court order (27.11.2025): Called for records to see if any relaxation was granted. Board produced records showing no decision or recorded reasons for relaxation.

4. Issues

1. Whether a candidate not possessing the essential qualification of 5 years’ work experience could be considered for selection on the strength of having a higher academic qualification (M.Tech) indicated as a “preference”.

2. Whether the power of relaxation under the Recruitment Rules was validly exercised in favour of the selected candidate in the absence of any recorded reasons or conscious application of mind.

3. Whether the selection and appointment can be sustained on equitable grounds given the long period of service, and if not, whether any other candidate (including the unsuccessful candidate) should be appointed.

5. Ratio Decidendi

• Essential qualifications must be strictly fulfilled: The requirement of “at least five years’ experience” was a minimum eligibility condition, not a mere desirable or preferential qualification. A higher academic degree (M.Tech) cannot substitute for or override an essential eligibility criterion. The stage of applying “preference” arises only after a candidate is found eligible (Para 21-24).

• Preference cannot cure ineligibility: The expression “preference will be given to candidates with M.Tech” operates within the zone of eligible candidates. It does not enlarge the field of eligibility. An ineligible candidate cannot be selected merely because they possess a preferred higher qualification (Para 24-25).

• Power of relaxation must be exercised consciously with recorded reasons: Rule 18 permits relaxation of any provision for reasons recorded in writing. The Board produced no material showing any decision to relax the experience requirement in favour of the selected candidate. The selection committee’s records were silent. Without a conscious, reasoned exercise of discretion, no valid relaxation can be presumed (Para 29-37, citing Rekha Chaturvedi).

• Equitable consideration not available where eligibility defect is fundamental: While the Court may protect long-serving employees in exceptional cases, such discretion is exercised only where the deficiency is marginal or curable (e.g., experience that can be acquired on the job). Here, the defect – lack of 5 years’ pre‑appointment experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance – was not curable by serving on the post. The nature of experience required was external and specialised. Hence, no equitable relief granted (Para 42-48, distinguishing Ram Sarup, Buddhi Nath).

• No automatic right of appointment for unsuccessful candidate: The selection process itself was vitiated because none of the candidates clearly satisfied the “company of repute” and “manufacturing/maintenance” specifications. The unsuccessful candidate’s experience was not shown to be in the exact field prescribed. Therefore, he could not claim a right to appointment. The proper course was to set aside the selection and leave the Board to issue a fresh advertisement (Para 50-57).

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Higher qualification cannot replace essential experience: Reaffirmed that where an advertisement prescribes specific work experience as an essential qualification, a candidate lacking such experience cannot be selected even if they possess a higher academic degree mentioned as a “preference”. The preference clause operates only among eligible candidates.

• Power of relaxation requires contemporaneous record of reasons: Even if the recruitment rules contain a general power of relaxation, its exercise must be evident from the selection records. Post-hoc justification or mere assumption of relaxation is insufficient. The selection committee must record reasons for relaxing eligibility in each case.

• Equitable relief denied where eligibility defect is incurable on the job: The judgment clarifies that long service does not automatically entitle a candidate to protection if the missing qualification (e.g., pre‑appointment external experience) cannot be acquired while serving on the post.

• Vitiated selection process – no consequential appointment: When the entire selection process is found flawed due to non‑adherence to essential qualifications, the court will not direct appointment of any candidate, even if they claim to be eligible, because the process itself was not valid.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Distinction between “essential” and “preferential” qualifications: The Court emphasised that the Rules use “essential” for experience and “preference” for M.Tech. The two operate at different stages – eligibility first, then preference. To collapse the distinction would defeat the recruitment policy.

• Absence of recorded relaxation fatal: The Board was directed to produce records. The records showed only the marks and basic details, but no note that the committee considered and consciously relaxed the experience requirement for the selected candidate. The Court rejected the argument that selection by a competent committee implies relaxation – a statutory power cannot be presumed.

• Equitable consideration – limited scope: The Court reviewed precedents where equity was applied (e.g., Buddhi Nath – lack of experience as Motor Vehicle Inspector was curable because the job itself provided the experience). Here, the required experience was pre‑appointment and in a different industry sector. Serving as Computer Hardware Engineer in the Board would not give experience in “computer manufacturing/maintenance company of repute”. Hence, no parity.

• No candidate satisfied the exact specification: The Court noted that even the unsuccessful candidate’s experience was in autonomous public institutions as Technical Assistant, Project Associate, etc., not demonstrably in a “computer manufacturing/maintenance company of repute”. Thus, the entire process was flawed.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a clear reaffirmation of the principle that recruitment rules must be followed strictly, and that “preference” cannot be used to bypass “essential” qualifications. It also correctly holds that a power of relaxation must be exercised transparently with recorded reasons – a necessary safeguard against arbitrariness. The refusal to grant equitable relief where the defect is fundamental is consistent with the constitutional mandate of equality in public employment.

Potential concerns: The judgment leaves the Board to issue a fresh advertisement, which may be impractical after many years (the advertisement was in 2016, and the judgment is in 2026). However, the alternative – validating an illegal appointment – would be worse. The Court could have directed the Board to consider the unsuccessful candidate if his experience was indeed in a “company of repute”, but it found that even his experience did not match the exact specification. This factual finding is based on the record.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in recruitment disputes where candidates claim that a higher qualification should be treated as equivalent to or a substitute for an essential experience requirement. It will also guide selection committees to document any exercise of relaxation power. Employers will be reminded that “preference” clauses are not a cure for ineligibility.

9. Final Outcome

Appeals dismissed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court is upheld. The selection and appointment of the appellant (Himakshi) is set aside. The respondent Board is at liberty to issue a fresh advertisement for the post of Computer Hardware Engineer and conduct the selection process strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. No direction for appointment of the unsuccessful candidate (Rahul) or any other candidate is issued. No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• By candidates in recruitment disputes: If an advertisement prescribes specific experience as an essential qualification, you cannot be selected without it even if you have a higher degree mentioned as “preference”. Challenge any selection that ignores this rule. Conversely, if you are the selected candidate, you cannot rely on a higher degree to cure lack of experience unless the rules expressly allow substitution.

• By recruiting agencies (public employers): When framing advertisements, clearly distinguish essential from desirable/preferential qualifications. If you intend to relax any essential condition, mention this possibility in the advertisement and record specific reasons in the selection proceedings for each candidate granted relaxation. Failure to do so will render the selection illegal.

• By courts: In service matters, when considering equitable relief for long-serving employees, examine whether the missing qualification is one that could have been acquired while working on the post. If the qualification is external and pre‑appointment, equitable relief is unlikely.

11.  Court Lines

“A preference operates only within the zone of eligible and merit candidates; it does not enlarge or modify the field of eligibility itself. … Where a candidate does not meet the threshold requirement of eligibility, the question of extending preference, being in merit, on account of higher qualification does not arise.” (Para 24)

“The mere existence of the power of relaxation does not obviate the manner of its exercise. … The absence of any deliberation or reasoning in this regard … reinforces the position that the selection was effected without due application of mind or after granting relaxation.” (Para 30, 34)

“Where the basic eligibility criteria itself remains unfulfilled, no claim of equity can arise in favour of one candidate … To extend such consideration in the face of a clear breach of essential qualifications would amount to placing equity above the R&P Rules, which is impermissible.” (Para 47)

“The selection process itself was not conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed eligibility criteria. … To direct appointment in his favour would amount to substituting one illegality with another without the benefit of a fair and rule-compliant selection process.” (Para 52-53)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the selected candidate (appellant): If you are appointed despite lacking an essential qualification, do not rely on a “preference” clause or a general power of relaxation unless you have documentary proof that the relaxation was consciously granted and recorded in the selection minutes. If litigation continues for years, argue equitable relief, but be prepared to show that the missing qualification could be acquired while working (e.g., on-the-job training). If the missing qualification is external (e.g., prior experience in a different industry), equitable relief will likely fail.

For the unsuccessful candidate (challenger): To succeed, first establish that the selected candidate did not meet the essential qualification as on the cut-off date. Then, if you claim appointment, you must also show that you yourself met all essential qualifications strictly (including the specific nature of experience, e.g., “company of repute” in “manufacturing/maintenance”). If the selection process is found flawed for all candidates, the court may not appoint anyone. Therefore, also argue that a fresh process should be ordered, and seek priority or age relaxation in the fresh process.

For the recruiting agency (Board): When the selection is challenged, produce the complete records showing that the eligibility of each candidate was verified against the advertisement. If relaxation was granted, produce the minutes where reasons were recorded. If you cannot produce such records, the selection will be quashed. In future, incorporate a specific clause in the advertisement if relaxation of experience is permissible, and ensure the selection committee records reasons for each relaxation.