Aptech ADSE Certificate Not Equivalent to Computer Diploma, Uttarakhand HC Upholds Candidature Rejections

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed six writ petitions challenging candidature rejections in a statistical officer recruitment, holding that qualification equivalence cannot be determined by courts or assumed by selecting bodies absent an express rule.

Six candidates who appeared in the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission's selection for posts of Investigator-cum-Computer, Assistant Statistical Officer, and Assistant Research Officer had their candidatures rejected after document verification revealed they did not hold the computer qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Each petitioner argued that the diploma or certificate they possessed was equivalent to, or higher than, the required qualification. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, sitting singly at Nainital, dismissed all six writ petitions by a common judgment dated 21 April 2026, holding that neither the selecting body nor the court can treat an alternate qualification as equivalent when the applicable rules and advertisement are silent on equivalence.

The Recruitment and the Rejections

The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 7 February 2024 inviting applications for the posts of Investigator-cum-Computer and Assistant Statistical Officer. A separate advertisement on 7 April 2024 covered the same posts. Both advertisements required candidates to hold, in addition to a postgraduate degree in specified subjects, either an ‘O’ level Diploma in Computers or a One Year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application from a recognised university or institution.

Several candidates made it onto provisional merit lists. At the document verification stage, however, the Commission found that a number of them did not hold the prescribed computer qualification. Their candidatures were rejected by orders dated 10 June 2025. Representations filed by the candidates were rejected on 28 July 2025, with the Commission holding that the rules do not permit consideration of any qualification other than the one expressly mentioned.

The six writ petitions that came before the court arose from these rejections. The petitioners fell into two broad groups. The first group — including Sadhana (Writ Petition No. 1692 of 2025) and Neha Khetwal (Writ Petition No. 1321 of 2025) — held certificates issued by Aptech Computer Education for a course called ADSE (Shikhar Project). The second group — including Mahima Rana, Ajeet Rawat, Vikram Jeet Singh, and Akshay Kumar — held an Advanced Diploma in Information Technology from a private institution called I.T. Computer Education, with a stated duration of 15 months.

What the Petitioners Argued

Counsel for the petitioners advanced two main contentions. First, that the qualifications they held were equivalent to the prescribed computer diploma. Second, that their qualifications were in fact of a higher level than what the advertisement required, and should therefore be treated as sufficient.

In support of the equivalence argument, petitioners in the second group relied on a Government Order dated 5 May 2022. Counsel for the petitioners in the first group pointed to a Division Bench judgment of the same court in Special Appeal No. 284 of 2023, where a diploma issued by Aptech Computer Education had been declared valid for a different selection.

The Commission's counsel countered on each point. The Aptech certificate bore the name ADSE (Shikhar Project) and did not indicate any course of study in computer science or computer application. The Government Order of 5 May 2022 was issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and had no application in Uttarakhand. The State of Uttarakhand had not recognised the institution that awarded the Advanced Diploma in Information Technology. And in the online applications, several petitioners had themselves declared that they held the prescribed qualification — a claim that turned out to be incorrect on verification.

Why the Court Rejected the Equivalence Argument

Justice Tiwari examined the Division Bench judgment relied upon by the first group of petitioners and found it inapplicable. The appellant in that case held an Advanced Diploma in Software Engineering, and the Division Bench was dealing with a different selection for different posts. A finding that a particular diploma was valid for one selection could not be extended to a different selection for different posts.

On the broader legal question, the court drew on a consistent line of Supreme Court authority. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das (2020 SCC OnLine SC 897), the Supreme Court held that it is for the employer to determine the relevancy and suitability of qualifications, and not for courts to assess the same. In Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019 (6) SCC 362), the Supreme Court held that questions of equivalence fall outside the domain of judicial review, and that a court cannot re-write an advertisement by treating a desirable qualification as on a par with an essential one.

The court placed particular weight on Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad ((2019) 2 SCC 404), where the Supreme Court stated that “equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review.” The prescription of qualifications is a matter of recruitment policy, and the State as employer is entitled to set conditions of eligibility. Absent a statutory rule permitting equivalence, no inference can be drawn that a higher qualification presupposes acquisition of a lower one.

The court also applied State of Punjab v. Anita ((2015) 2 SCC 170), which had dealt with an identical argument that higher qualifications should be treated as sufficient. The Supreme Court in that case had refused the argument, distinguishing it from Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission ((2010) 15 SCC 596), where a specific statutory rule — Rule 10(a)(ii) — expressly provided that higher qualifications presupposing a lower qualification would be sufficient. No such rule existed in the Uttarakhand recruitment.

The court found that the advertisement and the applicable rules were silent on equivalence. In that situation, the Selecting Body had no authority to treat any other qualification as equivalent to the one prescribed. The Commission was bound by the conditions set out in the advertisement and could not go beyond them.

The ADSE Certificate: An Additional Deficiency

For the petitioners holding the Aptech ADSE (Shikhar Project) certificate, the court identified a further and independent problem. The document they relied on was a certificate issued by a private institution, not a diploma. The name of the course — ADSE (Shikhar Project) — did not indicate that it was a course of study in computer science or computer application. The court observed that the nomenclature made no sense in the context of the prescribed qualification. On this ground alone, the rejection of their candidatures could not be interfered with.

Several petitioners in this group had also declared in their online applications that they possessed the prescribed computer qualification. Verification showed that declaration to be incorrect. The Commission had no option but to reject their candidatures.

The Uttar Pradesh Government Order

Petitioners in the second group argued that a Government Order dated 5 May 2022 recognised their Advanced Diploma in Information Technology as equivalent to a One Year Diploma in Computer Science/Application. The court accepted the Commission's submission that this order was issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and had no application in the State of Uttarakhand. The State of Uttarakhand had not recognised the institution that awarded the diploma. The argument was rejected.

The Parity Argument

One further argument was raised: that other candidates had been appointed to the same posts on the basis of the same qualifications. The court declined to examine this contention. The candidates who had allegedly been appointed were not parties before the court, and their appointments had not been challenged. The court held that it could not go into that question at that stage.

Outcome

All six writ petitions were dismissed. The court held that a candidate who does not possess the qualification prescribed in the rules cannot be considered for appointment, and that the question of equivalence can be examined by a selecting body only when the rules contain an express provision to that effect. Since the rules and the advertisement were silent on equivalence, the Commission's rejections were upheld. No order as to costs was made.