Courts Cannot Read Equivalence Into Recruitment Rules: Supreme Court Holds NIOS Certificate Fails ‘10+2 System’ Requirement

The Directorate of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, Goa advertised the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the Plumber trade on 05.11.2021. The 2006 Recruitment Rules required a pass in the 10th standard under the 10+2 system, a National Trade or Apprenticeship Certificate and five years' experience (para 4). Respondent No. 3 scored 96 marks in the written test and the appellant 94, but on document verification the Departmental Selection Committee found Respondent No. 3 ineligible because his 10th-standard pass was through NIOS, and selected the appellant (para 4). The Bombay High Court at Goa set that decision aside, treating the NIOS pass as sufficient (paras 3-4).

The question was whether an NIOS Secondary School Certificate satisfies the specific requirement of having ‘passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education’ (para 9). Qualifications must be satisfied in the manner prescribed; in judicial review courts cannot add to or alter them, and equivalence is ordinarily for the employer or an expert body, as held in Zahoor Ahmad Rather, Unnikrishnan C.V. and Shifana P.S. (paras 11, 15). Read by text and context, the words ‘under 10+2 system of education’ cannot be ignored (paras 12-13). The issue was not whether NIOS is a recognised qualification in general, but whether it meets this rule, which has no equivalence clause (para 14). Where the rules and advertisement are clear, the Court cannot substitute its view (para 16). The post is a technical teaching post (para 17), and the Department had applied the same reading in 2015, against the appellant himself, showing a consistent interpretation though not a binding precedent (paras 18-19). Recognition by the Goa Board cannot amend the eligibility condition (para 20), and merit counts only among eligible candidates (para 21).