Equality Of Opportunity In Matters Of Public Employment Is A Sine Qua Non For Fair & Transparent Selection Process: 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 explained, “...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.”

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

Factual Background

An advertisement was published in the year 2012 by the Secretary of Kerala Public Service Commission inviting applications from interested candidates for filling up 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 the issue of non-joinder of the appellant in the proceedings before the Tribunal though, he was a necessary party, the Bench noticed that the appellant did not immediately challenge the Tribunal’s order and rested on his oars to throw a challenge till his service came to be terminated. He took a chance of favourable consideration of his case by responding to the show cause.

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.

Referring to the judgment in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (2008), the Bench reiterated that an appointment made contrary to the statute/statutory rule would be void.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.

“We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified 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…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”, it observed.

On the issue of exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench held, “We are of the considered opinion that the appellant having gained entry through a process which was not legal and valid, this is not a fit and proper case where this Court ought, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, to ignore the illegality and invalidity to come to his rescue.”

“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