SC Upholds Exclusion of Higher Qualified Candidate Lacking Essential Qualification for Public Employment

This appeal arose from the High Court of Kerala's judgment which had rejected the writ petitions of Jomon K.K. (the appellant) against the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had instructed the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) to recast the ranked list for the post of "Boat Lascar" by omitting candidates who did not hold a valid Lascar's Licence as of the closing date for application. The appellant, possessing a Syrang's Licence (which is regarded as a higher qualification), had applied for the post, was ranked first, and initially recommended for appointment and later appointed.

But his advice for appointment and appointment were cancelled after the order of the Tribunal, which was made in original applications presented by unsuccessful candidates who held the requisite Lascar's Licence.

The main question of law before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant, not being in possession of a current Lascar's Licence but holding a Syrang's Licence, could have been deemed qualified to take part in the recruitment process and be appointed as Boat Lascar.

The Supreme Court noted that the advertisement explicitly mentioned possession of a valid Lascar's Licence as a major requirement. Even when a letter from the Director of Ports had indicated that such broader qualifications as Syrang's Licence may be deemed to be the same, the Court strongly pointed out that rules under statute requiring qualifications cannot be watered down by such letters.

The Apex Court differentiated earlier judgments where higher qualifications were held to be equivalent to the prescribed qualification, observing that in this instance, the particular requirement of a current Lascar's Licence, which the appellant did not possess on the material date, was paramount.

The Apex Court also noted that there is the principle that equality of opportunity in public hiring requires that all candidates who qualify under the particular essential qualifications must have an equal opportunity, and granting higher but non-essential candidates could discriminate against those who already have the required qualification but do not necessarily desire or have the ability to acquire higher certifications. In addition, the Court remarked that duties of a Lascar and a Syrang have different natures and that the feeder post relationship itself does not necessarily entitle a holder of the higher post's license to the lower one.

The Apex Court questioned the very objective of the higher qualified individuals applying for the jobs which are primarily for those with little or less qualified; jobs such as peon etc.. the Apex Court questioned "Do they (individuals who are less qualified) 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 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 appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming the ruling of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court held that the appellant's inclusion in the selection process was unlawful and valid since he lacked the vital qualification of a valid Lascar's Licence as required under the rules of the statute and advertisement.

The Apex Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief, seeing no palpable injustice to be intervened in in view of the illegality of the first consideration of the appellant.

CORAM: JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA AND JUSTICE MANMOHAN
BETWEEN: JOMON K.K. VS SHAJIMON P. & ORS 2025 INSC 425
DOJ: 02-04-2025