The Supreme Court observed that higher qualifications alone shouldn’t always be a deciding factor in job selection. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan noted that limited job opportunities may compel even postgraduates to apply for lower posts like that of a peon. However, appointing them could unfairly impact less-educated candidates. The court emphasized the need to balance qualifications with fairness in recruitment.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated that there is no universally applicable rule mandating the preference of a higher qualified candidate over one who meets the essential qualifications for a position.
The court emphasized that sometimes, the employer’s need for the right fit for the job takes precedence over merely having a higher qualification.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan highlighted that a lack of sufficient public employment opportunities might compel even a master’s degree holder to apply for a peon position.
They raised concerns about what happens to those who cannot pursue education beyond the 12th grade if most peon positions are filled by degree holders.
The court questioned,
“Do they remain unemployed forever, if all or the 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 bench further inquired,
” Is the State, as a model employer, not obliged to ensure that peon positions are filled only by those with the basic qualifications, rather than by overqualified candidates, in order to serve the common good? Does the State not have the responsibility to ensure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood?”
The judges noted that these are critical questions that cannot be overlooked.
The bench asserted,
“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,”
The court dismissed a plea by Jomon K K, who challenged the cancellation of his appointment as Boat Lascar in 2018 due to his lack of a Lascar certificate, despite holding a higher Syrang’s licence for one of the 12 positions advertised by the Kerala Public Service Commission in the Kerala State Water Transport Department.
The court stated,
“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,”
Also refusing to invoke its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to validate the appointment.
The court emphasized that whether the employer’s action to exclude a candidate from the selection process based on being overqualified or lacking the specific qualifications required should be assessed in light of the governing rules, prescribed qualifications, nature of the duties to be performed, and other relevant factors.
Counsel Vipin Nair, representing KPSC, argued that had it been clear that individuals without a Lascar’s licence but possessing a Syrang’s licence were eligible for the Lascar position, others with similar qualifications could have applied, thereby broadening the selection pool.
He contended that limiting the process to a select few while excluding similarly situated candidates like the appellant would violate Article 16 of the Constitution and constitute a fraud on the public.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
