Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Read ‘Or Equivalent’ Into a Recruitment Advertisement That Does Not Use Those Words

A Delhi High Court judge dismisses an SC candidate's plea after NSC rejected his B.Sc. (Agricultural Business Management) degree as not equivalent to the advertised B.Sc. (Agri.) requirement, holding that accepting State-level equivalence certificates mid-recruitment would fracture the uniform standard owed to all applicants.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, sitting singly at the High Court of Delhi, dismissed a writ petition filed by Bhagat Prashant Haribhau, a Scheduled Caste candidate with hearing impairment, who challenged the decision of National Seeds Corporation Limited (“NSC”) to exclude him from a recruitment process for the post of Senior Trainee (Marketing). NSC had disqualified him at the document verification stage on the ground that he held a B.Sc. (Agricultural Business Management) degree rather than the B.Sc. (Agri.) expressly required by Advertisement No. RECTT/1/18/NSC/2018. The judgment, dated 2 July 2026, turns on a single, sharply framed question: can a court treat two agricultural degrees as equivalent when the employer's advertisement prescribed one and was silent on the other? Justice Narula answered in the negative, holding that doing so would not be interpretation but a rewriting of the advertisement's terms.

The Recruitment and What Went Wrong at Document Verification

NSC issued Advertisement No. RECTT/1/18/NSC/2018 on 14 April 2018, inviting applications for 48 vacancies for the post of Senior Trainee (Marketing), a post carrying All India Service Liability. The essential educational qualification was stated as: B.Sc. (Agri.) plus MBA (Marketing/Agri. Business Management) full time, or a two-year full-time PG Degree/Diploma in Marketing/Agri. Business Management, or M.Sc. (Agri.) from a recognised university with a minimum of 55% marks. One vacancy under horizontal reservation was set aside for persons with hearing impairment.

The petitioner holds a B.Sc. (Agricultural Business Management) from Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, and an MBA (Agriculture) from Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, Maharashtra. He submitted his online application, appeared in the written examination on 3 June 2018, and was included in the shortlist notified on 15 June 2018 at Serial No. 48 in the category “PH-HH/Cat-B (PD)-SC.” He was called for document verification and medical examination on 21 June 2018.

At verification, NSC observed that the petitioner's bachelor's degree was titled B.Sc. (Agricultural Business Management) and not B.Sc. (Agri.). On that basis alone, NSC declined to permit him to proceed further. He was informed orally; no written communication was issued.

What the Petitioner Argued

Counsel for the petitioner advanced three lines of argument. First, that B.Sc. (Agricultural Business Management) is an agricultural degree awarded by a recognised agricultural university and its course structure substantially overlaps with B.Sc. (Agriculture). Second, that the Government of Maharashtra, by a Resolution dated 7 September 2011, had recognised B.Sc. (Agricultural Business Management) as equivalent to B.Sc. (Agriculture), and the concerned universities had issued equivalence certificates to that effect. Third, that NSC had taken an “unduly technical approach” by focusing on degree nomenclature without examining substantive academic content.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Sajid Khan v. L. Rahmathullah & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 17308/2017) for the proposition that recruitment conditions must receive a reasonable construction and that an unduly technical view should not be taken where the substance of a candidate's qualification satisfies the requirements of the post.

NSC's Defence

Counsel for NSC and its co-respondents countered on four grounds. The advertisement prescribed B.Sc. (Agri.) without any equivalence clause. NSC is a Government of India undertaking conducting all-India recruitment; acceptance of a State-specific equivalence resolution would undermine uniform eligibility standards. The petitioner had been provisionally shortlisted, and the call-letter itself stated that shortlisting conferred no right to appointment. Accepting equivalence after the advertisement's issuance would amount to changing eligibility criteria mid-process and would prejudice similarly qualified candidates who had not applied because their degrees were not listed.

NSC also pressed the allegation that the petitioner had furnished incorrect particulars in his online application by describing his qualification in the exact terminology of the advertisement, not in the terminology of his actual degree. Several Supreme Court and Delhi HC precedents were cited, including State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun (2002) 6 SCC 252, Zonal Manager, Bank of India v. Aarya K. Babu (2019) 8 SCC 587, and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Abhishek Yadav (2015 SCC OnLine Del 7998), among others.

How Justice Narula Reasoned

Justice Narula began from the undisputed facts: the petitioner's degrees are genuine, awarded by recognised agricultural universities, and he secured sufficient marks to be shortlisted. But he found that these facts could not advance the petitioner's case. In public recruitment, merit becomes relevant only after eligibility is established. A strong written examination performance cannot cure an absent essential qualification.

The court read the advertisement's text carefully. It prescribed B.Sc. (Agri.) without the phrase “or equivalent.” The advertisement did not include B.Sc. (Agricultural Business Management) as an alternate eligible qualification. Justice Narula held that “the Court cannot read the words ‘or equivalent’ into the advertisement when the employer chose not to include them.” To do so would not be interpretation; it would be rewriting the advertisement's terms. A recruitment notice functions as the charter of the selection process, informing prospective candidates across the country who may apply. Enlarging eligibility mid-process would prejudice those who read the advertisement as it stood and did not apply because their qualifications were not listed.

On the question of equivalence more broadly, the court held that determining whether two qualifications are equivalent requires an assessment of academic standards, course content, duration, practical exposure, institutional objectives, and suitability for the post. That assessment belongs to the employer or the competent authority, not to a court conducting judicial review. Judicial scrutiny in such matters is confined to examining whether the employer's decision is fair, rational, and reasonable, or otherwise amenable to established grounds of review — not to substituting the court's own view of academic suitability.

Justice Narula applied Lata Arun for the proposition that prescription of eligibility qualifications is a matter for the appropriate authority, not for courts. He applied Aarya K. Babu for the rule that it is not open to a court to read in or assume qualifications not included in the recruitment notification, and that neither a candidate nor the employer can change eligibility requirements once the selection process is under way. The Delhi HC Division Bench decision in Oriental Insurance Co. was applied for the proposition that unless equivalence is itself prescribed or recognised by the employer, it would be impermissible for a court to hold a different qualification equivalent.

The court also addressed the Bombay High Court's decision in Pallavi v. Government of India (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 160), where candidates relying on the same Government of Maharashtra Resolution of 7 September 2011 had sought equivalence for allied agricultural degrees. The Bombay HC had declined relief on the same principle: a claim of equivalence cannot succeed where such equivalence was not recognised in the recruitment framework at the time the advertisement was issued.

The petitioner's reliance on Sajid Khan was distinguished on its facts. In that case, the appointing authority had itself, before the recruitment process, sought and obtained a technical clarification on equivalence and had accepted the qualification on that basis. No comparable prior recognition by NSC existed in the present case.

SC Reservation and Horizontal Disability Reservation Cannot Substitute for Essential Qualification

Justice Narula directly addressed the petitioner's protected status. The court held that reservation — whether vertical (category-based) or horizontal (disability-based) — does not dispense with the requirement to possess the essential educational qualification unless the applicable rules or the advertisement expressly provide otherwise. The petitioner was entitled to consideration under the reserved categories only after satisfying the prescribed eligibility criteria. “Reservation cannot create eligibility where the essential qualification itself is absent.”

The Uniform-Standard Problem in All-India Recruitment

The judgment dedicated a separate passage to a systemic concern. NSC is a Government of India undertaking and the recruitment carried All India Service Liability. If equivalence recognised by different States or certified by different universities were permitted to expand notified eligibility after an advertisement, recruitment would cease to be governed by a uniform standard. Candidates from different States might rely on different equivalence regimes, producing varying eligibility conditions for the same post. That outcome would be permissible only if the employer itself incorporated equivalence into the advertisement or otherwise recognised it under the governing recruitment framework. NSC had done neither.

On the allegation of furnishing incorrect particulars, Justice Narula declined to return any finding. Since the petition could be decided on eligibility alone, and since the petitioner had produced his actual degree certificates at verification, the narrower ground — absence of the prescribed qualification — was sufficient to sustain NSC's decision.

The court also noted that while NSC should have communicated its rejection decision in writing rather than orally, remanding the matter solely for a written communication would serve no useful purpose. The basis of rejection was clear, undisputed, and fully argued before the court.

Outcome

The writ petition W.P.(C) 10079/2018 was dismissed. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of simultaneously. The court directed no costs.