The Supreme Court has reiterated that when an appointment process is fundamentally illegal or invalid, candidates cannot seek equitable relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, regardless of their qualifications. This significant ruling came in the case of Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors., where the Court dismissed an appeal against the Kerala High Court’s decision upholding the exclusion of a candidate from the post of “Boat Lascar.”
Case Background
The case revolved around an advertisement issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) in October 2012 for filling vacant posts of “Boat Lascar” under the Kerala State Water Transport Department. The advertisement specified that candidates must possess a “current Lascar’s licence” as an essential qualification.
The appellant, who possessed a higher qualification—a Syrang’s license—applied for the position based on a letter from the Director of Ports stating that a Syrang’s license was superior to and more than equivalent to a Lascar’s license. The appellant was subsequently ranked first in the selection list and advised for recruitment.
However, unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection process before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, arguing that candidates without a current Lascar’s license were ineligible. The Tribunal ruled in their favor, directing the KPSC to recast the ranked list by excluding ineligible candidates. Consequently, the appellant’s appointment was cancelled.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan made several key observations:
- Statutorily Prescribed Qualifications Are Paramount: The Court emphasized that qualifications prescribed by Special Rules and the advertisement cannot be diluted by administrative opinions. Rule 6 of the Special Rules clearly required a “current Lascar’s licence” for the post.
- Equal Opportunity in Public Employment: The Court noted that allowing overqualified candidates to compete for positions designed for those with lesser qualifications would deprive equal opportunity to candidates who meet only the basic eligibility.
- Different Nature of Duties: The Court observed that the duties and services required of a Lascar and a Syrang are different. Merely because the post of Lascar is a feeder post for promotion to Syrang does not automatically make a Syrang license holder qualified for a Lascar position.
- Case-Specific Approach to Overqualification: The Court rejected a universal rule that candidates with higher qualifications must always be preferred, noting:”Whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which […] does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other factors.”
- Social Implications of Overqualification: The Court raised important questions about the consequences of allowing overqualified candidates to occupy positions meant for those with basic qualifications, asking:”Do [those with basic qualifications] 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?”
No Relief Under Article 142
When the appellant sought equitable relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court firmly rejected this plea, citing Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India:
“If an appointment is illegal, it is non-est in the eye of law and rendering the appointment a nullity and principles of equity in a case of such nature would have no role to play; also that, sympathy should not be misplaced.”
The Court concluded:
“We are of the considered opinion that the appellant having gained entry through a process which was not legal and valid, this is not a fit and proper case where this Court ought, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, to ignore the illegality and invalidity to come to his rescue.”
Implications for Public Employment
This judgment carries significant implications for public employment processes:
- It reinforces the sanctity of eligibility criteria prescribed in recruitment notices
- It protects the interests of candidates with basic qualifications who might otherwise be edged out by overqualified applicants
- It establishes that higher qualifications cannot override specific eligibility requirements
- It underscores the importance of fairness in creating level playing fields in public employment
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision provides important clarity on the tension between overqualification and prescribed eligibility in public employment. It establishes that while merit and higher qualifications are valuable, they cannot supersede the specific qualifications prescribed by statutory rules. The judgment also emphasizes that illegal appointment processes cannot be salvaged through equitable powers, regardless of a candidate’s qualifications.
This ruling serves as an important reminder that public employment processes must adhere strictly to established rules and regulations to ensure fairness and equal opportunity for all candidates.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are based on our analysis of the judgment and may not represent the official position of August Attorneys LLP. Readers should consult a qualified attorney for advice on specific legal matters.
Case: Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7930-7931 of 2020]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan