( 2026:HHC:27031 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2786 of 2019. Decided on : 7 th July , 2026. Sandeep Kaushal ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar God and Mr. Viveka Nand, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- i) That the writ in nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued by quashing and setting aside the selection/appointment of respondent No.5 for the post of Inspector (Hotel) and the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) petitioner being meritorious may kindly be issue appointment letter for the said post;” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur had issued an advertisement vide Annexure P-1 i.e. Advertisement No.32-3/2016. The Commission invited applications for various posts in terms of aforesaid advertisement, including four posts of Inspector (Hotel) on contract basis in the department of Tourisum and Civil Aviation. The opening date for submission of Online Recruitment Application Form was 18.10.2016 and the Closing date for submission thereof was 17.11.2016 till 11:59 P.M. In terms of the advertisement, for the post of Inspector (Hotel), the necessary qualification required was as under:- “Graduate from a recognized University with Diploma in Hotel Management or Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized University.” 3 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his candidature for the post of Inspector (Hotel) has been rejected on the ground that he was not possessing the requisite qualification for being appointed against the said post. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission, the petitioner applied for the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. As per the learned counsel, despite the fact that the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria as he was having the requisite qualification, yet in terms of Annexure P-7, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he failed to produce the certificates of essential qualification as per the R & P Rules. He submitted that the said rejection is not sustainable, more so, in light of the fact that in the written test, which was conducted by the Commission, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the 4 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) same and he secured the highest marks in the category in issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as also the advertisement, the educational qualification required for the post was graduation from a recognized University with Diploma in Hotel Management or Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized University. He submitted that the petitioner herein was holding a diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology issued by the National Council for the Hotel Management and Catering Techonology, New Delhi in the year 2002, which was equivalent to a graduate degree. He further submitted that thereafter the petitioner had acquired Masters Degree in Tourism Management which was a higher qualification than what was desired by the employer. Accordingly, he submitted that as there was no bar that a candidate with higher qualification was disqualified from participating in the 5 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) process, the rejection of his candidature is bad in the eyes of law. No other point was urged. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the Commission as well as the learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that there was no infirmity in the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-7, as petitioner indeed was not possessing the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement. It was argued on their behalf that the advertisement was unambiguous that the essential educational qualification for the post of Inspector (Hotel) was graduation from a recognized university with diploma in Hotel Management or Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized university. They submitted that the petitioner herein was neither possessing a graduation degree from a recognized University with diploma in Hotel Management nor 6 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) he was holding a Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized University. They further argued that the qualifications possessed by the petitioner were not as prescribed in the advertisement, therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was strictly in terms of the contents of the advertisement. It was also argued on their behalf that simply because the petitioner was allowed to participate in the written test, it did not create any vested right in his favour to seek employment on the basis of marks obtained by him in the written test, because until and unless he otherwise was eligible to participate in the process which also included the fulfilling of essential qualification criteria, he had no right to seek employment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as also the documents appended therewith. 7 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) 7. Facts, which are not in dispute are that the four posts which were advertised in the Tourism and Civil Aviation Department i.e. the posts of Inspector (Hotel) on the contract basis, included one post for Scheduled Caste category. The essential qualification mentioned in the advertisement for being eligible to participate in the selection process was graduation from a recognized University with Diploma in Hotel Management or Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized University. 8. Along with the petition, the petitioner has appended Annexure P-2, which is a copy of certificate of Diploma issued to the petitioner by the National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology, New Delhi in Hotel Management and Catering Technology. In terms of this certificate, it was a Diploma issued in favour of the petitioner upon successful completion of studies and industrial training in the three year programme during the academic years 8 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) 1999-2002. In addition, the petitioner has also appended with the petition Annexure P-3, a Master’s Degree issued in his favour by the Indira Gandhi National Open University in the month of August, 2008, which degree has been given to the petitioner in Tourism Management. Upon perusing these documents, this Court is of the considered view that these qualifications of the petitioner are not pari materia with the essential qualifications as were prescribed in the advertisement. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that the diploma in Hotel Management, issued in his favour was equivalent to graduation but then there is no material before this Court from where this inference can be drawn. Otherwise also, in the absence of there being a mention in the advertisement that the essential qualification was, graduation from a recognized university with Diploma in Hotel Management and Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized University or its equivalent 9 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) qualification, even if it is assumed that this was an equivalent qualification, according to this Court, said qualification cannot become substitute for graduation from a recognized university as was the mandate of the advertisement. 9. Now, graduation from a recognized University, was also to be followed by a diploma in Hotel Management. Here, as observed above, the petitioner was not possessing any graduation degree from a recognized university. In addition, he was not even possessing any diploma in Hotel Management. Even if it is to be assumed that the diploma issued in favour of the petitioner was equivalent to a graduation degree, then after obtaining this diploma, there is no further diploma obtained by the petitioner in Hotel Management. The qualification of Masters Degree in Tourism Management was not the requirement of the advertisement and on the strength of this qualification, the petitioner cannot say that the rejection of his candidature is bad in law. 10 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this was a higher qualification and, therefore, he should have been considered on the strength of this qualification also does not convince this Court. What should be the requisite qualification for the appointment against the advertised post is the prerogative of the employer and the same depends upon the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed by the employer for the filling up of the post in question. 11. This Court stands informed that the essential qualification for engagement of Inspector (Hotel), as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules akin to the essential qualification as mentioned in the advertisement. Thus, when the employer desires that for appointment against the post of Inspector (Hotel), an incumbent should be graduate from a recognized university with diploma in Hotel Management or should possess Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration 11 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) from a recognized University, this Court cannot substitute its opinion or view for the contents of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules or the contents of the advertisement relating to essential qualification, by conferring eligibility upon a candidate who is otherwise not eligible in terms of the language and mandate of the advertisement. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jomon K.K. vs. Shajimon P. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 711, decided on 02.04.2025, has been pleased to hold as under:- “20. Next, turning to the crux of the issue, it is absolutely necessary to bear in mind that though the posts of Syrang and Lascar are included in Class III of the Subordinate Service, the requisite qualifications for appointment on such posts as ordained by the Special Rules are different. Moreover, it is specifically ordained by Rule 6 of the Special Rules as follows: "6. Other Qualifications. No person shall be eligible for appointment to the categories specified in column (1) of the Table below by the method specified in column (2) unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof." 21. As noted in the factual narrative, possession of a current Lascar's licence is an essential qualification for anyone aspiring 12 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) for the post of Lascar. This is what is laid down in column (3), i.e., the qualifications required; and going by what is said therein read with Rule 6, there can be no gainsaying that apart from those having a current Lascar's licence, none else is eligible. The word "current" is also significant in the sense that the Rules insist on a subsisting licence, i.e., a certificate of competency, which is valid and operative during the time the last date for receiving applications intervenes. 22. The advertisement did not require anything else other than what the Special Rules require. The absence of express mention that those holding a Syrang's licence or a Driver's licence which, according to the Director, are superior to a Lascar's licence, is insignificant, irrelevant and immaterial having regard to the clear terms of Rule 6 (supra). 23. Viewed from a different angle, on a conjoint reading of Rule 6 of the Special Rules and the advertisement, we find both mentioning a particular qualification, i.e., a current Lascar's licence, which each aspirant has to possess for being considered eligible to participate in the process of selection, thereby creating a distinct class and it is aspirants falling in such class alone who could have applied for being considered. Thus, any aspirant, even though possessing a Syrang's licence or a Driver's licence not being part of such distinct class, could not have been considered eligible. The classification has not been shown to be and is not unreasonable. ……….. 36. We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection 13 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other factors. It has to be remembered that, at times, the employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of decisions holding that over-qualification cannot disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one handand on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or inflexible rules or norms. Lack of public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain unemployed forever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled up by such degree holders? What happens if the Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public 14 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for subserving me common good? Does not the State have the obligation to strive to sure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no Court can afford to ignore. We end by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post.” 13. Thereafter, this judgment has been followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in General Manager (HR) and another versus K. Poovarasan, 2026 INSC 581, decided on 19.05.2026, in which, a Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “9. Having considered the matter in its entirety, though we may have sympathy for the respondent, the conduct attributed to him and the settled position of law leave us with no option but interfere with the impugned judgment. Public employment must be made available to all eligible candidates in accordance with the prescribed qualifications. 15 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) At this juncture, it would be apposite to quote the observation of this Court in Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. and others (supra) as follows: "36. We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other factors. It has to be remembered that at times, the employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of decisions holding that over-qualification cannot be a disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand and on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or public employment inflexible opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master rules or norms. Lack of degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being 16 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain unemployed forever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled upon by such degree holders? What happens if the Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for sub-serving the common good? Does not the State have the obligation to strive to ensure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no court can afford to ignore. We end by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post. ……. 38. This Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 held that if an appointment is illegal, it 17 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) is non-est in the eye of law and rendering the appointment a nullity and principles of equity in a case of such nature would have no role to play; also that, sympathy should not be misplaced." 10. In the present case, it is manifest from the communication dated 20.10.2009 sent by the appellants to the Employment Exchange that the minimum qualification prescribed was a pass in the s standard and the maximum qualification prescribed was that the candidate should not have passed the Intermediate or 12th Standard оr 10+2 Examination. The rationale behind prescribing an upper limit of qualification is both reasonable and equitable, namely, to provide employment opportunities to persons who, owing to circumstances of life, could not pursue higher education. The State, as a model employer, is justified in reserving certain categories of posts for such persons so that they are not compelled to compete with more highly qualified candidates against whom they would ordinarily stand little chance of selection. Such a policy has consistently been upheld by the Courts. Thus, when the post was specifically intended for candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity.” 14. Thus, it is evident from the above two judgments that Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to uphold the 18 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) principle that wherein a particular qualification is mentioned for the purpose of appointment, then a person who claims that he possesses a higher qualification than the one mentioned in the Rules or the advertisement, does not have a right of appointment against the post in issue. In the present case, as has been observed hereinabove also, the advertisement was clear and completely unambiguous as to what was the essential qualification required by a candidate for applying to the post in issue, which was Graduation from a recognized University with Diploma in Hotel Management or Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized University. As indeed, the petitioner was not possessing said qualifications, his candidature was rightly rejected. Mere participation in written examination cannot be construed as a waiver on the part of the respondents of requirement of possessing essential qualifications. 19 ( 2026:HHC:27031 ) 15. In light of the above discussion as there is no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 7th July, 2026. (jai)