2025:UHC:10090 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 8 3 9 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 1 & 2. 3. Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent no. 3/ UKPSC. 4. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission advertised 37 vacancies on the post of Instructor (Foremen) in different Government Industrial Training Institutes. The qualifications prescribed was (i) I ntermediate from Secondary Education Board U.P./ Uttarakhand or any qualification declared as equivalent thereto by the State Government; (ii) Diploma in Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical/ Electronics/ Computer/ Refrigeration and Air Conditioning/ Automobile Engineering from Technical Education Board U.P./ Uttarakhand or any other qualification declared as equivalent thereto; and (iii) teaching or work experience of ten years from a well known institute or industrial establishment. 5. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement; he was permitted to participate in the selection process and his name also figured in the list of successful candidates, who were called for document verification, however, during document verification, petitioner was informed that he lacks requisite qualification, as he does not possess Intermediate qualification from U.P. Board/ Uttarakhand Board or any equivalent qualification. 2025:UHC:10090 6. Petitioner relies upon Uttarakhand Board of School Education Amendment Regulations, 2025, which were notified on 17.03.2025. By the said notification, Regulation 14 (7) (x) was amended for providing that three years diploma course, obtained after passing High School examination from Uttarakhand Technical Education Board, shall be treated as equivalent to Intermediate qualification. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the said amendment made in the Regulations framed by Uttarakhand School Education Board, petitioner’s candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that he do not possess Intermediate qualification. He submits that since petitioner possesses Diploma from Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, which has to be treated as equivalent to Intermediate, therefore, petitioner is fully qualified for appointment as Instructor (Foremen). 8. Per contra, Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body submits that eligibility of a candidate for appointment to a post, has to be seen on the last date of submission of application. She submits that the application was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement in question on 10.11.2023, which was also the last date indicated in the advertisement for submitting applications, therefore, the subsequent amendment in the Regulations would not support the case of the petitioner. She further submits that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement in question has been amended or altered and the amendment, which is being relied upon by the petitioner was made by the Uttarakhand Board of School Education in its Regulations, which cannot be made applicable for 2025:UHC:10090 determining eligibility of a candidate for appointment as Instructor (Foreman). She further submits that even if the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on its face value and the Diploma possessed by the petitioner is taken as Intermediate qualification, then petitioner would be lacking the second qualification mentioned in the advertisement, namely diploma; she submits that diploma possessed by the petitioner, if is used for making good the deficiency of Intermediate qualification, then the same diploma possessed by the petitioner cannot be relied for meeting the requirement of second condition of the advertisement. She further submits that qualifications required for appointment to a particular post have to be determined by the employer according to the requirement of work; in the present case State Government, as employer, has determined the eligibility condition in which Intermediate qualification as well as Diploma in Engineering are essential and petitioner though possesses diploma, but he lacks Intermediate qualification, which goes to the root of the matter and the grievance raised by the petitioner against his non- selection, therefore, is without any substance. 9. This Court finds substance in the submission made by Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body. Eligibility for appointment to a post must be possessed on the last date of submission of application. The last date for submitting application was 10.01.2023; while, the amendment made by Uttarakhand Board of School Education was notified on 17.03.2025. The same amendment cannot be made retrospectively applicable to make good the deficiency in academic qualification of the petitioner. 2025:UHC:10090 10. Even otherwise also, the applicability of the amendment made by Uttarakhand Board of School Education in its Regulations, to the ongoing selection for the post of Instructor (Foremen) is doubtful, as the eligibility criteria for appointment to a post has to be seen with reference to the relevant recruitment rules. The recruitment rules provided that one must possess Intermediate qualification with a diploma in Engineering. If the diploma is treated as a substitute for Intermediate qualification, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, then petitioner would be lacking second requisite qualification, namely Diploma in Engineering, as one qualification cannot be the substitute for two separate qualifications. Every employer has a right to determine the qualification needed for appointment to a particular post; in the present case, employer (State Government) has decided that I ntermediate qualification and Diploma in Engineering, both qualifications would be necessary for appointment. Uttarakhand Board of School Education is not the employer for the post of Instructor (Foremen); the purpose for which Uttarakhand Board of School Education made amendment in its Regulations is not known, therefore, that amendment cannot ipso facto be made applicable so as to treat the petitioner as eligible for appointment. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. 12. The writ petition, accordingly fails, and is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 14.11.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046 f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10381 9DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.11.15 11:57:00 +05'30'