The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, has held that a Secondary School Certificate obtained from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) cannot be treated as fulfilling an essential qualification requiring a candidate to have passed the 10th standard “under 10+2 system of education” when the governing recruitment rules contain no equivalence clause. Setting aside a judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, the apex court ruled that courts exercising judicial review cannot expand eligibility conditions or read equivalence into recruitment rules, and reiterated that obtaining higher marks in an examination cannot cure the absence of prescribed eligibility criteria.
Background of the Dispute
The recruitment controversy originated from an advertisement issued on November 5, 2021, by the Directorate of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of Goa (Respondent No. 2), inviting applications for various posts, including Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber. The recruitment was governed by the Recruitment Rules notified in the Official Gazette on April 20, 2006, which stipulated the following mandatory qualifications:
- Academic: Passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education;
- Technical: National Trade/National Apprenticeship Certificate in the trade;
- Experience: Practical experience of not less than 5 years in the industry.
Both the Appellant, Santosh B. Naik, and Respondent No. 3 applied for the post under the unreserved category. In the written examination held on November 9, 2022, Respondent No. 3 secured 96 marks, while the Appellant secured 94 marks. Following document verification initiated on March 8, 2023, the Departmental Selection Committee convened on March 23, 2023, to determine eligibility.
The Committee discovered that Respondent No. 3 had cleared his Secondary School Certificate Examination in June 2004 through NIOS in the subjects of English, Home Science, Science, Economics, and Hindi, and had not studied Mathematics. Consequently, the Committee held him ineligible under the Recruitment Rules for failing to satisfy the requirement of passing the 10th standard under the 10+2 system of education. The Appellant was found eligible, included in the Final Selection List, offered the appointment on March 24, 2023, and accepted the offer on March 27, 2023.
Aggrieved by his disqualification, Respondent No. 3 approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa via Writ Petition No. 272 of 2023. On January 11, 2024, the High Court allowed the petition, ruling that an NIOS 10th pass must be treated as meeting the prescribed academic qualification in view of its general recognition. It quashed the Selection Committee’s minutes of March 23, 2023, along with the communication dated April 12, 2023, and directed the authorities to consider Respondent No. 3 for appointment based on his written test marks. Challenging this order, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant
Learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Shiven Dessai and Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, argued that the High Court overlooked the specific phrasing in the Recruitment Rules, which required candidates to have passed 10th standard “under 10+2 system of education.” They submitted that this phrase was consciously inserted for a technical post falling under the Engineering Trade category.
Counsel emphasized that the 10+2 system envisaged under the National Policy on Education requires a structured course of formal schooling with compulsory Science and Mathematics, whereas Respondent No. 3 had bypassed Mathematics in NIOS. They contended that the High Court effectively read an unwritten clause of equivalence into the Rules, exceeding its powers of judicial review. The Appellant also pointed out that the Department had applied this rule consistently, having previously disqualified the Appellant himself on identical grounds during the 2015 recruitment cycle for holding an open schooling certificate.
Submissions on Behalf of the State of Goa (Respondents 1 & 2)
Learned Senior Counsel Ms. Shirin Khajuria, representing the State of Goa and the Directorate, supported the appeal. She submitted that the recruitment was conducted strictly under the statutory rules and that the term “10+2 system of education” denotes a formal schooling framework (5 years primary, 3 years middle, and 2 years high school) with foundational subjects, unlike open schooling models. She submitted that in the absence of an express equivalence clause in the rules, general recognition granted by the Goa Board could not override or dilute the employer’s specific recruitment mandate.
Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 3
Opposing the appeal, learned counsel Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle contended that Respondent No. 3 was the highest scorer with 96 marks and held all requisite technical certificates, alongside prior experience as a Guest Lecturer in the Plumber trade at Government ITI, Pernem. He placed reliance on communications issued by the Association of Indian Universities and the Ministry of Human Resource Development, specifically a communication dated October 5, 1993, recognizing NIOS secondary examinations as equivalent to Class 10 examinations of recognized boards for employment. He argued that the rules did not explicitly bar open schooling certificates and that the High Court rightly protected his appointment.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis and Legal Findings
Delivering the judgment, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi framed the primary question as whether a candidate holding an NIOS Secondary School Certificate satisfies the specific requirement of having passed the 10th standard “under 10+2 system of education” for the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber.
The Court held that the precise words used in statutory qualification standards cannot be rendered redundant:
“It is well-settled that the qualifications prescribed by the recruiting authority for a particular post are required to be satisfied in the manner in which they have been prescribed. The Court, while exercising judicial review, ordinarily cannot add to or alter the essential qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. The question as to whether a qualification possessed by a candidate is equivalent to the qualification prescribed is ordinarily within the domain of the employer or the competent expert body.”
In affirming this principle, the bench referred to settled precedents, including Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. (2019), Unnikrishnan C.V. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2023), and Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2024), which establish that judicial review cannot be used to expand eligibility criteria or introduce equivalence where none is provided by the rule-making authority. The bench also cited Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019) to reiterate that prescribing qualifications lies squarely in the employer’s domain.
Citing Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (1987), the Court observed that statutory interpretation must adhere to both text and context:
“In our considered view, the words ‘under 10+2 system of education’ cannot be ignored. They form part of the qualification prescribed for the post and have to be given their due meaning.”
The bench emphasized the distinction between universal recognition and post-specific qualification:
“The question, therefore, is not whether the Secondary School Certificate issued by NIOS is a recognised qualification in general. The question is whether such qualification satisfies the specific eligibility condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post in question.”
Addressing the recognition granted to NIOS by educational boards, the Court observed:
“Such recognition may establish the acceptability of the qualification for the purposes for which it is granted. It cannot, by itself, amend or enlarge the eligibility condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for appointment to a particular post.”
The Court also took note of the technical nature of the post and observed that the employer had consistently adhered to this interpretation, recalling that the Appellant himself had been declared ineligible during the 2015 recruitment on identical grounds.
Addressing the contention regarding higher marks secured in the written examination, the Court held:
“Comparative merit can be considered only amongst candidates who satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions. The marks secured in the written examination cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules.”
The Court clarified that its findings remain confined solely to the specific Recruitment Rules and advertisement at issue, expressing no opinion on the general validity, recognition, or equivalence of NIOS qualifications for other recruitment processes or under other regulatory frameworks.
Final Decision
Finding that the High Court committed a grave error in allowing the writ petition, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed:
- The judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa dated January 11, 2024, in Writ Petition No. 272 of 2023 is set aside.
- The appointment of Respondent No. 3 made pursuant to the High Court order (vide Memorandum dated February 19, 2024, and final appointment order dated June 11, 2024) is set aside.
- The decision of the Departmental Selection Committee dated March 23, 2023, declaring Respondent No. 3 ineligible and selecting the Appellant, stands restored.
- The temporary appointment of the Appellant pursuant to his original selection and the Memorandum dated March 24, 2023, stands restored, subject to applicable service conditions.
Case Title: Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13460 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 35916 of 2026, Diary No. 11600 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date: October 06, 2026
