Possession Of Higher Qualification Presupposes Acquisition Of Lower Qualification Unless Recruiter Stipulates Otherwise: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that possession of higher qualifications by a candidate in a selection process presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification for the said post. The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha while holding so, observed that where the candidate does not hold the essential qualification, i.e., a Diploma, but...
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that possession of higher qualifications by a candidate in a selection process presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification for the said post.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha while holding so, observed that where the candidate does not hold the essential qualification, i.e., a Diploma, but higher qualification, the same could not be taken to disqualify the candidate.
"...It is trite that a higher qualification, in order to become eligible for selection to a post for which a lower qualification has been prescribed, must presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification. It is also trite that if one holds a higher qualification in the same faculty, the same can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification", the Court reiterated.
As per the facts, applications were invited for appointment against the sole vacancy to the post of Pharmacist in the Central University of Kerala. The qualification prescribed for a candidate to be eligible to the said post was that of 10+2 along with 2 years Diploma in Pharmacy and registration with the State Pharmacy Council. The selection process was a three-tier one which included a preliminary examination, final examination, and a skill test.
The petitioner before the Single Judge (respondent herein) was found to be the sole person to have qualified the final exam. However, she was not permitted to take part in the skill test on the ground that she possessed a higher qualification of B. Pharm and M. Pharm. After perusing her documents, the University passed a notice that no one was found qualified, since the petitioner herein did not hold the two-year Diploma, as stipulated in the notification.
The Single Judge found that since the candidate had clearly stated in her application that she did not possess a Diploma in Pharmacy, the action of the University in disqualifying her from the selection process on this ground is unsustainable. It is against this decision of the Single Judge that the University (the appellants herein) filed the instant writ appeal.
Before the Division Bench, it was contended by Senior Advocate K. Ramakumar, the Standing Counsel for the Central University of Kerala, T. Ramprasad Unni, and Advocate S.M. Prakash, that as per the notification issued by the University, only those candidates who held 2 year Diploma in Pharmacy were eligible to participate in the selection process, and only such applications were accepted. The counsels submitted that the respondent herein had deceived them and made a false claim in her application that she possessed the given qualification. It was averred that the respondent could thus, not take advantage of the wrong committed by her, and that even other candidates who did not possess the given qualification were barred from participating in the selection process.
The Court in this case noted that what had been prescribed in the notification was simply the 'essential qualification' which was required to take part in the selection process. The Court stated that if the University had intended only diploma holders to apply for the said post, it ought to have clearly stipulated so in the notification that had been issued.
"When that position was not made clear in the notification, the University cannot be heard to contend that those who hold higher qualifications which presuppose acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post are not entitled to participate in the selection process", the Court observed.
The Court further added that accepting the University's contention that it had permitted the respondent to take part in the selection process based on the false claim made by her that she held a Diploma in Pharmacy in addition to her Degree and Post Graduation in the subject, would be discriminatory towards candidates holding higher qualifications, since they would be deprived of employment opportunities.
In fact, the Court further perused the application submitted by the respondent to ascertain that she had categorically stated in her application that she did not have a Diploma in Pharmacy.
The respondent's application showed that she had secured Diploma with '1 mark'. The Court opined that this technical glitch ought to have been explained by the respondent, however,the same would not be sufficient to make out a case of 'false claim'.
Thus, the judgment of the Single Judge was confirmed, save for the portion which directed the University to permit even those applicants who had not qualified the written examination to participate in the skill test.
The Central Government Counsel S. Krishnamoorthy, appeared for the respondent in the instant appeal.
Case Title: Central University Kerala & Anr. v. Joshila J.U.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 505