The Supreme Court held that public employment must be filled strictly according to prescribed qualifications, observing that allowing overqualified candidates to occupy posts meant for lower-qualified applicants unfairly deprives genuinely eligible and deserving candidates of employment opportunities intended for them under recruitment rules.
Noting that public jobs must be offered to eligible applicants strictly in line with the required qualifications, the Supreme Court ruled that letting someone with higher educational qualifications take a position meant for lower-qualified candidates unlawfully deprives the truly eligible and deserving persons.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan made this observation while overturning a Madras High Court order that had directed reinstatement of a temporary bank attendant.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider that the employee had obtained appointment to a post reserved for candidates with qualifications up to Class 10. The court said this was done by hiding the fact that he was a graduate.
In addition, the court said:
“Public employment must be made available to all eligible candidates in accordance with the prescribed qualifications…. ”
The bench explained:
“When the post was specifically intended for candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity,”
ALSO READ: “Tainted Candidates Can’t Reapply”: Calcutta HC Cracks Down on 2016 SSC Scam
According to the Supreme Court, the purpose of setting an upper education limit is fair and reasonable. It is designed to expand job opportunities for individuals who, due to life circumstances, could not pursue higher education.
While confirming the bank’s decision to dismiss the employee, the bench said,
“The State, as a model employer, is justified in reserving certain categories of posts for such persons so that they are not compelled to compete with more highly-qualified candidates against whom they would ordinarily stand little chance of selection. Such a policy has consistently been upheld by the courts,”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE