No Universal Rule That Candidate With Qualification Higher Than Basic Eligibility For Post Must Be Preferred: Supreme Court
Though over-qualification by itself is not a disqualification, there is no general rule that candidates with qualifications higher than the basic qualification required for a post must be preferred, observed the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered today.The Court observed that there is no straight-jacket rule that candidates with higher qualifications must be selected over those with...
Though over-qualification by itself is not a disqualification, there is no general rule that candidates with qualifications higher than the basic qualification required for a post must be preferred, observed the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered today.
The Court observed that there is no straight-jacket rule that candidates with higher qualifications must be selected over those with possessing the basic qualification. Each case will depend on its facts, the rules governing the selection process, the nature of duty to be performed etc.
"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 Court observed.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan made these observations while affirming a judgment of the Kerala High Court which upheld the exclusion of the appellant from the post of "Boat Lascar” under the Kerala State Water Transport Department. The basic qualification prescribed for the post was Lascar's Licence. The appellant possessed a higher qualification of Syrang's license. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal directed the Public Service Commission to exclude ineligible candidates from the ranked list. Following that, the advice given for the appellant's appointment was cancelled, on the ground that he had higher qualifications than prescribed.
The bench observed that it has to go by the essential qualifications prescribed by the Special Rules as well as the Advertisement. 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 Court also explained why it was unjust to allow a candidate with a higher qualification to apply for the post requiring a lesser qualification.
"If persons holding Syrang's licence - who are obviously 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."
Allowing Master degree holders to apply for peon posts may result in injustice
The Court acknowledged that there are decisions holding that overqualification is not a disqualification. However, it cannot be given a universal application.
"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."
At the end of the judgment, the Court made certain general observations to the effect that allowing highly qualified persons to apply for jobs requiring lesser qualifications may lead to injustice in some situations.
"Lack of public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master 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? 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 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? 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."
Case : Jomon KK v Shajimon P and others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 381
Click here to read the judgment
