No Universally Accepted Rule That Higher Qualified Candidate Is To Be Preferred To Candidate Who Matches Essential Qualification Required For The Post: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering the appeals by special leave filed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petitions.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan asserted, “.... 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… 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”

Senior Advocate P. N Ravindran represented the Appellant while AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An advertisement was published in 2012 by the Secretary of Kerala Public Service Commission inviting applications from interested candidates to fill 12 vacant posts of “Boat Lascar” under the Kerala State Water Transport Department. The appellant was the holder of a Syrang’s licence, which was valid when he noticed the advertisement. He secured 45.67 marks. While the appellant was awaiting an offer of appointment, two sets of original applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals were filed before the Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam Benches of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

During the pendency of the original applications before the Tribunal, the appellant came to be appointed as “Boat Lascar”. The Tribunal allowed both the original applications and directed KPSC to recast the “Ranked List” and to cancel the advice to appoint ineligible candidates. The KPSC issued an order cancelling the advice for appointment of the appellant, following which the Director cancelled the appellant's appointment as “Boat Lascar”. The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court in separate writ petitions, but the Division Bench dismissed the same. In such circumstances, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Issue

The main issue for adjudication was whether the appellant who did not hold a current Lascar's licence but was the holder of a Syrang's licence could have been considered qualified to participate in the recruitment process as well as appointed.

Reasoning

On a conjoint reading of Rule 6 of the Special Rules and the advertisement, the Bench noted that both mentioned 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”, it said.

It was further stated by the Bench that 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 Bench explained that if persons holding Syrang's licence - who are better equipped than persons holding Lascar’s licence - are 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 would be quite high. It could also be a distinct possibility where all the vacant posts of Lascar are 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.

The Apex Court affirmed the view of the Division Bench of the High Court that KPSC could not have included candidates with licenses other than a Lascar's license in the “Ranked List” and proceed to recommend those candidates for appointment. The Bench held, “…aggrieved are 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.

“On merits, therefore, no legally protected right of the appellant having been affected by the impugned action, he has no valid claim”, the Bench said while dismissing the Appeal.

Cause Title: Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 42)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate P. N Ravindran, AOR P. S. Sudheer, Advocates Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M J

Respondent: AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocates Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K., AOR Vipin Nair, Advocates Mohd Aman Alam, Aditya Narendranath

Click here to read/download Judgment