Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on April 2, 2025 held 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, as each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts, while the employer’s need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has also to be conceded. 

The apex court said lack of public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a master’s 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.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan further asked do they remain unemployed for ever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled up by such degree holders? What happens if the master’s 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?

The court posed further questions: 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," the bench said.

The court emphasised whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is overqualified 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, the bench said.

"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 inflexible rules or norms," the bench added.      

The court dismissed a civil appeal filed by Jomon K K against the Kerala High Court's judgment of December 2, 2019 which rejected his writ petition against the decision to cancel his appointment to the post of Boat Lascar in 2018, as he did not possess Lascar's licence but had higher qualification of Syrang’s licence. The decision had come after administrative tribunals had directed for recasting the rank list by removing ineligible candidates. 

It said merely because the post of Lascar is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Syrang does not per se make the holder of a Syrang’s licence qualified for the job of a Lascar.   

The appellant's counsel contended that both the tribunal in allowing the original applications as well as the high court in dismissing the writ petitions fell in error in not appreciating that a higher qualification could never have been regarded as a disqualification for appointment on the post of Lascar. His counsel cited judgments stating that a candidate having a higher degree in the subject prescribed under the advertisement cannot be disqualified by reason of ineligibility for not possessing the required degree.

The KPSC contended that the appellant and similarly placed candidates having Syrang’s licence were considered for selection in view of the letter of the director dated 9th October, 2012. However, the tribunal having held that candidates not possessing current Lascar’s licence could not have been considered for selection and having directed KPSC to recast the “Ranked List”, the same was duly complied with resulting in cancellation of the advice for appointment of the appellant.

Its counsel said had it been known that anyone not having a Lascar’s licence but having a Syrang’s licence would be eligible for consideration for appointment on the post of Lascar, others having Syrang’s certificate could also have applied thereby enlarging the zone of consideration. However, keeping the process confined only to a select few and not extending opportunity to all others similarly situate like the appellant would contravene Article 16 of the Constitution and also amount to a fraud on public.

The court felt the aggrieved were all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appellant but who had not applied for the post because they were unaware of the fact that persons not having a current Lascar’s licence would also be eligible to apply and compete in the process. 

"Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment being a sine qua non for a fair and transparent selection process, such equality is conspicuously absent in the present case," the court said.

After considering the rules and the advertisement, the court found that both mentioned a specific qualification — a current Lascar's licence — which every aspirant was required to possess in order to be eligible to participate in the selection process. This created a distinct class, and only those falling within that class could apply to be considered.

Thus, any aspirant, even though possessing a Syrang’s licence or a Driver’s licence not being part of such a distinct class, could not have been considered eligible. The classification has not been shown to be and is not unreasonable, it said.

The court also said if persons holding Syrang's licence - who were obviously better equipped than persons holding Lascar’s licence - were allowed to apply and participate in the process for appointment on the post of Lascar, the probability of the persons holding Lascar's licence being outperformed by the persons holding Syrang's licence was quite high. It could also be a distinct possibility where all the vacant posts of Lascar were filled up by persons having Syrang's licence but not having a current Lascar’s licence as per the statutory requirement. 

That would pose a real difficulty for persons not so fortunate and lacking in higher intelligence, abilities and intellect, for, they would cease to have a level playing field of competing with other similarly qualified candidates, and left to compete with candidates having higher qualifications despite the zone of consideration having been specially carved out for holders of current Lascar’s licence, it said.

The court held the appellant having gained entry through a process which was not legal and valid, this was not a fit and proper case where the top court ought, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, to ignore the illegality and invalidity to come to his rescue.  

Case Title: Jomon K K Vs Shajimon P & Ors Etc