HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14501 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard Ms. Utkarshni Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Commission. The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 25.08.2026, whereby appeal of the petitioner challenging the rejection order of petitioner's candidature has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) pursuant to an advertisement dated 03.11.2020, in which the last date for submission of online applicatioin form was 03.12.2020. As per one of the conditions in the advertisement, the candidate must have held driving license authorizing him to drive a motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles. The petitioner being eligible possessing learner's licence, annexed at Page- 51 of the writ petition, submitted application prior to the last date and was permitted to appear in the written examination on the basis of said licence. Surprisingly, vide order dated 03.08.2026 the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled citing deficiency of heavy motor vehicle licence. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal annexing therewith the driving licence as required, which has been brought on record at Page-50 of the writ petition. The said appeal has been rejected on 25.08.2026 mentioning a vague reason that nothing new has been brought on the record by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the interview is scheduled tomorrow, i.e., 10.09.2026, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aushim Luthra, Irshad Husain, Utkarshni Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mahendra Narain Singh Manish Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the said interview. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Commission submits that it is a settled position of law that in case the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification as mentioned in the advertisement on the last date of submission of application form, he or she cannot be permitted to appear in the examination The permanent licence which has been annexed along with the appeal was issued on 10.08.2022 i.e. much after the last date of submission of application form i.e. 03.12.2020. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the requisite licence, which was expressly stipulated as an essential condition of eligibility under the advertisement. Such a condition cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality or waived at the instance of an individual candidate. The eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement constitute the parameters governing the selection process and are required to be applied uniformly and without exception. The law is well settled that a candidate who does not fulfil an essential eligibility condition prescribed under the applicable rules or advertisement cannot claim a vested or enforceable right to be considered for appointment. In the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85, the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the recruitment process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and that relaxation of an eligibility condition is impermissible in the absence of an enabling provision under the governing rules or the advertisement. The same principle has been consistently reiterated in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58; Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 18; Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan & Ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168; and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54. In the present case, the petitioner having failed to satisfy an essential eligibility criterion, his candidature was liable to be rejected at the threshold. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot supplant or dilute the eligibility conditions prescribed by the competent authority, nor can it confer eligibility where none existed under the governing framework. The rejection of the petitioner's candidature WRIA No. 14501 of 2026 2 on account of his failure to possess the requisite licence is, therefore, wholly consonant with the prescribed conditions and the settled position of law. However, perusal of the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 reflects that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and thus is unsustainable. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.08.2026, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed. The respondent Commission is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh, expeditiously, in accordance with law. Needless to say that this Court has not interfered with the order dated 03.08.2026 cancelling candidature of the petitioner on the ground of not having requisite licence at the relevant point of time. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. September 9, 2026 DS WRIA No. 14501 of 2026 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad