TITLE: ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. V. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7602 OF 2023
DECIDED ON: 9 NOVEMBER 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court of India is considering appeals against a ruling rendered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court concerning the hiring of junior office assistants by the Himachal Pradesh government. The appeals are the result of multiple cases and deal with common concerns about the qualifications needed for the position and the easing of hiring regulations. The administration clarified the requirements, which resulted in the controversial inclusion of several candidates who weren’t eligible. The relaxation measures and the creation of the select list were contested in later ads and court cases. Multiple appeals resulted from the High Court’s order to recast the merit list for some seats while upholding the selection process.
Issues Involved
Whether the relaxation of eligibility criteria, especially after the last date for receipt of applications, is legally permissible. Whether the statutory regime, particularly the regulations empowering the Himachal Takniki Shiksha Board, is violated by relaxing eligibility criteria and recognizing private institutions without due verification. Whether the recognition of certain courses from private institutions without proper examination of their status under the statutory regime affects the eligibility criteria and violates constitutional mandates. Whether there is actual ambiguity in the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the 2014 Rules, as asserted by the High Court.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The Supreme Court’s judgment on the Junior Office Assistant recruitment case in Himachal Pradesh addressed issues of eligibility criteria, relaxation orders, and adherence to statutory rules. The Court criticized the relaxation of eligibility criteria post-application deadline, citing irregularities, and emphasized the need for wide publicity of relaxations. It faulted the use of outdated rules in the third advertisement and stressed that candidates with specified essential qualifications should be prioritized. The Court highlighted the oversight of the statutory regime and disapproved of self-certification in candidate approval. The judgment clarified that employers could issue fresh advertisements under new rules, and candidates in the merit list lacked an automatic right to appointment. Appointments under the first advertisement were not to be disturbed, except in cases of nepotism or mala fides. The Court directed against the closure of selection processes based on unsustainable relaxation orders. All appeals were disposed of, with no costs awarded.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
