SANTOSH B. NAIK v. STATE OF GOA & ORS.

2026 INSC 1089 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13460 OF 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 35916 of 2026) [Diary No. 11600 of 2025]

SANTOSH B. NAIK … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF GOA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 11.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in

Signature Not Verified Writ Petition No. 272 of 2023, whereby the High Court allowed Digitally signed by NEHA GUPTA Date: 2026.10.06 16:28:13 IST Reason: the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 3 herein, quashed the

Minutes of the Meeting dated 23.03.2023 issued by the

Page 1 of 23

Departmental Selection Committee as well as the communication

dated 12.04.2023, and directed the concerned authorities to

consider the case of Respondent No. 3 for recruitment to the post

of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber, in

light of the marks secured by him in the written examination.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1 Respondent No. 2 i.e., the Directorate of Skills

Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of Goa,

issued an advertisement dated 05.11.2021 inviting

applications for various posts, including the post of

Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber.

The Recruitment Rules governing the said post had been

notified vide Official Gazette dated 20.04.2006 (hereinafter

referred to as the “Recruitment Rules”). The qualifications

prescribed for the post, as per the advertisement and the

Recruitment Rules, were as under:

(a) Academic: Passed 10th standard under 10+2 system

of education;

Page 2 of 23

(b) Technical: Should possess National Trade/National

Apprenticeship Certificate in the trade;

(c) Experience: Practical experience of not less than 5

years in the industry.

4.2 The Appellant herein applied for the said post under the

unreserved category on 25.11.2021. Respondent No. 3 also

applied for the same post. A written examination was

conducted on 09.11.2022, in which Respondent No. 3

secured 96 marks, whereas the Appellant secured 94

marks. Thereafter, vide notice dated 08.03.2023, the

candidates were called upon to produce documents

pertaining to the essential qualifications and other criteria

prescribed for the post, for the purpose of verification. The

said notice specifically stipulated that selection on the

basis of merit was subject to authentication of the requisite

documents.

4.3 On 23.03.2023, the Departmental Selection Committee

considered the eligibility of the candidates upon

verification of their documents. The Committee found that

Page 3 of 23

Respondent No. 3 did not possess the essential academic

qualification of having passed 10th standard under the

10+2 system of education and, consequently, found him

ineligible under the Recruitment Rules. The Appellant was

found eligible and was accordingly placed in the Final

Selection List. By Memorandum dated 24.03.2023, the

Appellant was offered the post of Vocational Instructor

(Practical) in the trade of Plumber, which was accepted by

the Appellant by communication dated 27.03.2023.

4.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Respondent No.

3 preferred Writ Petition No. 272 of 2023 before the High

Court of Bombay at Goa, contending, inter alia, that he

possessed the requisite academic qualification by virtue of

having passed the Secondary School Certificate

Examination conducted by the National Institute of Open

Schooling (hereinafter referred to as the “NIOS”) in June,

2004, wherein he had cleared the subjects of English,

Home Science, Science, Economics and Hindi. It was not

in dispute that Respondent No. 3 possessed the requisite

Page 4 of 23

technical qualification as well as the requisite experience.

The controversy before the High Court was, therefore,

confined to whether the qualification possessed by

Respondent No. 3 satisfied the academic qualification

prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the

advertisement.

4.5 The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated

11.01.2024, accepted the case of Respondent No. 3,

placing reliance upon the recognition accorded to the NIOS

qualification and the material relied upon by Respondent

No. 3. In that regard, the High Court held that a candidate

who has passed the 10th standard through NIOS is

required to be treated as possessing the academic

qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. The

High Court accordingly quashed the minutes of the

Departmental Selection Committee dated 23.03.2023 and

the communication dated 12.04.2023, and directed the

Respondent-authorities to consider Respondent No. 3 for

Page 5 of 23

recruitment to the post in question in light of the marks

obtained by him.

4.6 Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the Appellant has

preferred the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

5. Mr. Shiven Dessai and Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, while challenging

the impugned judgment, have made the following submissions:

5.1 It is submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate

the precise language employed in the Recruitment Rules

and the advertisement. It is submitted that the eligibility

condition does not merely require a candidate to have

passed the 10th standard, rather, it specifically requires

the candidate to have passed the 10th standard “under

10+2 system of education”. The said qualifying expression

could not have been read out of the Rule by the High Court.

5.2 It is submitted that the expression “under 10+2 system of

education” was deliberately incorporated by the employer,

Page 6 of 23

having regard to the nature of the post in question. It is

submitted that the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical)

in the trade of Plumber falls within the Engineering Trade

category and the employer was, therefore, entitled to

prescribe a particular educational qualification as an

essential qualification for the said post.

5.3 It is further submitted that the 10+2 system of education,

as envisaged in the National Policy on Education,

comprises a structured course of formal schooling in

which Science and Mathematics are compulsory subjects,

whereas Respondent No. 3 cleared English, Home Science,

Science, Economics and Hindi through NIOS and did not

study Mathematics. It is submitted that the employer,

having regard to the technical nature of the post,

deliberately referred to a system of education and not

merely to a certificate of completion.

5.4 It is further submitted that the High Court, while placing

reliance upon the general recognition accorded to NIOS

qualifications, has, in effect, introduced a concept of

Page 7 of 23

equivalence into the Recruitment Rules, even though the

Rules themselves contain no provision treating the NIOS

Secondary qualification as equivalent to the specific

qualification prescribed for the post in question. It is

submitted that the High Court, in exercise of the power of

judicial review, could not have enlarged the scope of the

eligibility condition or substituted its own view for that of

the recruiting authority.

5.5 It is submitted that the employer’s interpretation of its own

Recruitment Rules deserves due weight, particularly where

the Rules have been framed keeping in view the specific

requirements of the post. In this regard, reliance is placed

upon the earlier recruitment process undertaken in the

year 2015 for the same post, wherein the Departmental

Selection Committee, by its minutes dated 16.11.2015,

found the Appellant himself not eligible during the course

of interview, on the ground that he had passed the

Secondary School Certificate Examination of the National

Open School and, therefore, did not possess the

Page 8 of 23

qualification of having passed 10th standard under the

10+2 system of education.

5.6 It is lastly submitted that the Departmental Selection

Committee, upon verification of documents, had

specifically examined the qualification possessed by

Respondent No. 3 and had concluded that he did not

satisfy the prescribed academic qualification. It is

submitted that the question of merit in the written

examination can arise for consideration only amongst

candidates who satisfy the essential eligibility criteria, and

not otherwise.

6. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has made the following submissions:

6.1 It is submitted that the recruitment process for the post of

Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber

was conducted strictly in accordance with the Recruitment

Page 9 of 23

Rules and the prescribed procedure, including verification

of the essential qualifications.

6.2 It is submitted that the essential academic qualification

under the Rules was specifically “Passed 10th standard

under 10+2 system of education”, and that the said

expression could not be treated as including every

qualification recognised as equivalent to the 10th

standard, particularly in the absence of any equivalence

clause in the Rules.

6.3 It is further submitted that the ‘10+2 system of education’

refers to the structured formal system comprising primary

(5 years), middle (3 years) and high school (2 years)

education, with compulsory subjects such as

Mathematics, Science, English and Social Studies,

whereas NIOS, being an open schooling model, does not

mandate the study of such foundational subjects required

for a technical post.

6.4 It is further submitted that upon verification of

documents, it was found that Respondent No. 3 did not

Page 10 of 23

possess the prescribed academic qualification and

consequently, was not considered fit and eligible, whereas

the Appellant was found to possess the requisite

qualifications and was selected and offered appointment in

accordance with the Rules.

6.5 It is further submitted that the Department had

consistently applied the aforesaid interpretation of the

Recruitment Rules, including the earlier recruitment

process undertaken in 2015 for the same post, and that

NIOS Secondary qualification had been treated as not

satisfying the requirement of passing 10th standard under

the 10+2 system of education.

6.6 Finally, the learned senior counsel submitted that the High

Court had, in effect, read an equivalence provision into the

Recruitment Rules and that the recognition of the NIOS

certificate by the Goa Board could not override or modify

the specific eligibility requirement prescribed under the

Recruitment Rules for the post in question.

Page 11 of 23

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3

7. Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Respondent No. 3, while opposing the present appeal

and supporting the impugned judgment, has made the following

submissions:

7.1 It is submitted that Respondent No. 3 possessed all the

essential qualifications prescribed for the post and had

secured the highest marks i.e., 96 marks, in the written

examination, as against 94 marks secured by the

Appellant. It is further submitted that all his original

documents, including the NIOS certificate, were produced

for verification and no objection was raised by the

Department at the time of such verification.

7.2 It is submitted that the Secondary School Certificate

obtained by Respondent No. 3 from NIOS is a valid and

recognised qualification and that NIOS was established by

the Government of India to provide opportunities for

persons unable to pursue conventional schooling to

Page 12 of 23

continue their education and re-enter the mainstream of

education.

7.3 The learned counsel further relied upon the notifications

and communications issued by the Association of Indian

Universities and the Ministry of Human Resource

Development, particularly the communication dated

05.10.1993, to submit that the Secondary School

Examination conducted by NIOS had been recognised as

equivalent to the Class 10th examination conducted by

recognised Boards and that such recognition was also

applicable for the purpose of employment.

7.4 It is submitted that the expression “10+2 system of

education” cannot be construed as restricting eligibility

only to candidates who have undergone conventional or

regular schooling. According to Respondent No. 3, neither

the Recruitment Rules nor the advertisement expressly

exclude qualifications obtained through recognised open-

schooling institutions such as NIOS, and the High Court

Page 13 of 23

had therefore correctly treated the NIOS qualification as

satisfying the prescribed requirement.

7.5 Finally, the learned counsel submitted that Respondent

No. 3 possessed the requisite technical qualifications and

had also served as a Guest Lecturer for conducting the

Plumber Trade course at the Government Industrial

Training Institute, Pernem, from 18.03.2021 to

31.08.2022. It was therefore submitted that the NIOS

qualification could not be a ground for excluding

Respondent No. 3, and that the High Court had rightly

directed his consideration for appointment in view of the

marks secured by him.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length

and having carefully perused the material on record, it emerges

that the relevant facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that

Respondent No. 3 possesses a Secondary School Certificate

obtained through NIOS. It is also not in dispute that Respondent

No. 3 secured 96 marks in the written examination, whereas the

Page 14 of 23

Appellant secured 94 marks. However, as noted above, selection

on the basis of merit was subject to the candidate satisfying the

essential eligibility criteria prescribed for the post. The question

of comparative merit would, therefore, arise only after a

candidate is found to satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria.

9. The question which arises for our consideration is: Whether a

candidate possessing the Secondary School Certificate obtained

through NIOS satisfies the specific requirement prescribed under

the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement of having ‘passed

10th standard under 10+2 system of education’, for appointment

to the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of

Plumber?

10. The answer to the question posed before us would depend upon

the interpretation of the qualification prescribed under the

Recruitment Rules and incorporated in the advertisement dated

05.11.2021. The relevant qualification reads: “Passed 10th

standard under 10+2 system of education.” The words employed

in the said qualification assume significance.

Page 15 of 23

11. 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. This principle has been reiterated by this

Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz

Ahmad & Ors.,1 Unnikrishnan C.V. & Ors. v. Union of India

& Ors.,2 and Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors.3

12. At the same time, the qualification prescribed under the

Recruitment Rules has to be understood in the context in which

it occurs. The words used by the rule-making authority cannot

be ignored. As observed by this Court in Reserve Bank of India

Page 16 of 23

v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.,4

interpretation must depend upon the text as well as the context.

13. In the present case, the requirement is not merely that the

candidate should have passed the 10th standard. The

requirement is that the candidate should have “passed 10th

standard under 10+2 system of education.” 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.

14. 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. The distinction is significant as

the Recruitment Rules do not contain any provision treating a

qualification recognised as equivalent to the 10th standard as

4 (1987) 1 SCC 424

Page 17 of 23

satisfying the requirement of having passed 10th standard under

the 10+2 system of education.

15. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), this Court has held that the

qualifications prescribed for a post have to be considered having

regard to the duties and responsibilities attached to the post and

that the Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the

recruiting authority. Likewise, in Unnikrishnan C.V. (supra)

and Shifana P.S. (supra), this Court has reiterated that judicial

review cannot be used to expand the prescribed eligibility

conditions or to treat a qualification not prescribed under the

Rules as equivalent to the prescribed qualification.

16. Further, in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v.

Sandeep Shriram Warade,5 this Court held that the

prescription of essential qualifications is within the domain of the

employer and that the Court cannot substitute its own view

where the language of the advertisement and the Rules is clear.

Page 18 of 23

17. The nature of the post is also relevant. The post in question is

that of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber.

The Recruitment Rules prescribe, apart from the academic

qualification, a National Trade Certificate/National

Apprenticeship Certificate in the relevant trade and practical

experience in the industry. The qualifications prescribed under

the Rules are, therefore, part of the eligibility framework for a

technical teaching post and have to be considered in that

context.

18. There is another circumstance which, in our view, is relevant. In

the earlier recruitment process undertaken in the year 2015 for

the same post, the Appellant himself had participated. By

minutes dated 16.11.2015, the Departmental Selection

Committee, during the course of the interview, found him not

eligible for selection as he had passed the Secondary School

examination of the National Open School and did not possess the

essential qualification of having passed 10th standard under the

10+2 system. The interpretation placed by the Department in the

present case was, therefore, not adopted for the first time.

Page 19 of 23

19. The aforesaid circumstance is relevant for the limited purpose of

showing the consistent interpretation placed by the employer

upon the qualification prescribed for the same post. We are not

treating the decision taken in the earlier recruitment process as

a binding precedent. It nevertheless demonstrates that the

Department had understood and applied the Recruitment Rules

in the same manner on an earlier occasion.

20. The reliance placed upon the recognition of the NIOS

qualification by the Goa Board or other educational authorities

also cannot, in our view, alter the position. 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.

21. We also cannot accept that the higher marks secured by

Respondent No. 3 can have any bearing on the issue of eligibility.

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

Page 20 of 23

an essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment

Rules.

22. From the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that the

Recruitment Rules prescribe a specific academic qualification

and that the words “under 10+2 system of education” form an

integral part thereof. In the absence of any provision under the

Rules treating the NIOS Secondary School Certificate as

satisfying the said requirement, such qualification cannot be

treated as fulfilling the essential academic qualification

prescribed for the post in question.

23. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Departmental

Selection Committee, upon verification of the documents, rightly

found Respondent No. 3 not eligible for the post on account of

non-fulfilment of the prescribed academic qualification. The said

decision was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and,

therefore, did not warrant interference by the High Court.

24. It is clarified that the conclusion recorded hereinabove is

confined to the Recruitment Rules applicable to the post in

question and the advertisement dated 05.11.2021. We express

Page 21 of 23

no opinion with regard to the validity, recognition or equivalence

of NIOS qualifications for any other purpose or under any other

set of Recruitment Rules.

CONCLUSION

25. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the High Court

has committed a grave error in allowing Writ Petition No. 272 of

2023 and in directing the authorities to treat Respondent No. 3

as eligible for the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the

trade of Plumber. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order

dated 11.01.2024 cannot be sustained in law.

26. In view of the above, we hold and direct as under:

26.1 The impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2024

passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition

No. 272 of 2023 is set aside.

26.2 Consequently, the appointment of Respondent No. 3 made

pursuant thereto vide Memorandum dated 19.02.2024

and final appointment order dated 11.06.2024 also stand

set aside.

Page 22 of 23

26.3 The decision of the Departmental Selection Committee

dated 23.03.2023, whereby Respondent No. 3 was found

not to possess the essential academic qualification

prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the Appellant

came to be selected, stands restored.

26.4 Consequently, the temporary appointment of the Appellant

pursuant to the aforesaid selection and the Memorandum

dated 24.03.2023 stands restored, subject to the

applicable terms and conditions of service.

27. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed.

28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………………………J. [ARAVIND KUMAR]

………………………………J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 06, 2026

Page 23 of 23