Higher Qualification Cannot Override Prescribed Eligibility for Lower-Qualification Posts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that permitting candidates with a higher qualification to participate in a selection process meant for candidates with a lower qualification results in depriving the genuinely eligible and deserving candidates, as it emphasised that selection processes must adhere strictly to the rules in vogue at the time of commencement.

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that appointing candidates with higher qualifications to posts requiring lower qualifications is impermissible, as it deprives genuinely eligible candidates.

What was the dispute over the appointments?

The appeals arose from the recruitment of Lab Technicians/X-ray Technicians in government medical institutions in Bihar.

The appellants, Kumar Praveen Pratap and others, had been appointed on different dates between 2005 and 2010 on a contractual basis to the posts of Lab Technician/X-ray Technician in Government Medical Institutions.

The recruitment to these posts was governed by the Bihar Lab Technician Cadre Rules, 2014.

On June 21, 2015, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) published an advertisement for regular appointments to the posts. The prescribed qualification was a Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology (DMLT).

The appellants participated in the selection process but possessed a Bachelor Degree in Medical Laboratory Technology (BMLT), which was a higher qualification.

During the counselling process, the Commission informed them that they did not possess the requisite qualification, namely the Diploma.

Aggrieved by this, the appellants approached the high court. Their writ petition was disposed of on June 30, 2016, with a direction to the Commission to determine the eligibility of candidates on the basis of valid and recognised degrees/qualifications and consider candidates possessing valid higher qualifications.

In compliance with the direction, the Commission permitted the appellants to participate in the selection process and completed their counselling.

However, when the result for regular appointment was published on May 29, 2020, the appellants' names were not included.

The appellants again approached the high court. On March 3, 2021, the single judge directed revision of the merit list and reconsideration of the appellants' inclusion in the list.

The Commission challenged the order before a division bench of the high court. On December 6, 2023, the division bench allowed the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Commission and set aside the single judge's order.

The appellants also assailed the order dated December 14, 2021.

What did the Supreme Court hold on higher qualifications?

Considering the appeals, the Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the division bench of the high court.

The Bench held that on a post intended for candidates possessing a lower qualification, permitting candidates with a higher qualification would result in depriving genuinely eligible and deserving candidates.

It further held that the selection process must be conducted in accordance with the rules in force at the time the selection process commenced.

Court reiterated that the “rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is played”.

“Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the high court,” the Bench said.

Why did the Supreme Court still order regularisation?

While refusing to interfere with the high court's judgment, Court took note of the fact that the appellants had rendered service as Lab Technicians/X-ray Technicians in government institutions for more than 15 years.

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellants have rendered service as Lab Technician/X-ray Technician in Government institutions for more than fifteen years,” the Bench said.

Court also noted that 610 posts were still vacant.

Considering the long period of service rendered by the appellants, the Court held that the interest of justice would be served if their services were regularised.

Court accordingly directed the State Government to formulate a scheme for regularisation of the appellants to the posts of Lab Technician/X-ray Technician and regularise their services.

Court, however, clarified that such a direction was being issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

What will be the terms of regularisation?

Court ordered that the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit of seniority or the pay scale of the posts of Lab Technician/X-ray Technician for the period prior to their regularisation.

However, the period of service already rendered by the appellants would be reckoned for pension purposes, if the post of Lab Technician/X-ray Technician is otherwise pensionable.

The State was also given liberty to decide whether the appointment of the appellants to the post of Lab Technician would be treated as extra-cadre contractual appointments or as appointments within the cadre.

Court further vacated its interim order of February 5, 2024, directing the parties to maintain status quo. It allowed the State to fill up the remaining vacant posts.

The Bench clarified that these directions were confined to the appellants before the Court and were issued only in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Case Title: Kumar Praveen Pratap & Ors Etc Vs Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors Etc

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe 

Date of Judgment: August 11, 2026