LexJOMON K.K. versus SHAJIMON P. & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 369 : 2025 INSC 425 Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 4499-4500 of 2025) 02 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant who did not hold a current Lascar’s licence but was the holder of a Syrang’s licence (superior to Lascar’s licence) could have been considered qualified to participate in the recruitment process for the post of “Boat Lascar” under Kerala State Water Transport Department and appointed as “Boat Lascar”. Headnotes† Special Rules of 1975 for the Kerala State Water Transport Subordinate Service (Operating Wing) – r.6 – Appellant who did not hold a current Lascar’s licence, as required, but was the holder of a Syrang’s licence (superior to Lascar’s licence), if was qualified to participate in the recruitment process for the post of “Boat Lascar” and appointed as “Boat Lascar” – Appellant’s appointment as “Boat Lascar” was cancelled: Held: The advertisement did not require anything else other than what the Special Rules require – Possession of a current Lascar’s licence was an essential qualification for the post of Lascar – This was laid down in the qualifications required; which when read with r.6 shows that apart from those having a current Lascar’s licence, none else was eligible – The word “current” is significant as the Rules insist on a subsisting licence, i.e., a certificate of competency, which is valid and operative during the time the last date for receiving applications intervene – However, the appellant did not have the ‘current’ Lascar’s licence on the last date for receiving applications – On a conjoint reading of r.6, Special Rules and the advertisement, both mentioning a particular qualification, i.e., a current Lascar’s licence, which each aspirant had to possess for being considered eligible to participate in the process of selection, thereby creating a distinct class, it was aspirants falling in such class alone who could have applied for being considered – Thus, any aspirant, even though possessing a Syrang’s licence or a Driver’s * Author 370 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports licence not being part of such distinct class, could not have been considered eligible – Furthermore, not only the qualifications but the nature of duties required to be performed and the nature of service to be rendered by a Lascar and a Syrang are different – 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 – High Court rightly held that KPSC could not have included candidates with licences other than a Lascar’s licence in the “Ranked List” and proceeded to recommend those candidates for appointment – An appointment made contrary to the statutory rule would be void – On merits, no legally protected right of the appellant having been affected by the impugned action, he has no valid claim. [Paras 22-24, 28-31] Public employment – Selection – Exclusion of aspirants from selection process, if justified – Factors to be considered – Whether overqualification can be a disqualification: Held: 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, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution, 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 – 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 – There are 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 – Each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be preferred
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.