In a significant ruling that draws a clear distinction between qualification and eligibility, the Supreme Court of India has held that over-qualification is not a disqualification in itself, but there exists no legal principle that mandates preference to candidates with higher qualifications, especially when the recruitment is governed by specific statutory rules.
The judgment was delivered in Jomon K.K. vs Shajimon P. & Others [Civil Appeal Nos. _____ of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7930–7931 of 2020], where the apex court dismissed an appeal by Jomon K.K. challenging the cancellation of his appointment as a “Boat Lascar” in the Kerala State Water Transport Department.
Background of the Case
In 2012, the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a notification inviting applications for 12 posts of “Boat Lascar” through direct recruitment. The advertisement explicitly stated that candidates must have literacy in Malayalam, Tamil, or Kannada, and possess a current Lascar’s Licence.
Jomon K.K., however, held a Syrang’s Licence, which is considered a higher qualification and obtainable only after holding a Lascar’s Licence for two years. Relying on a letter issued by the Director of Ports—stating that Syrang’s and Driver’s Licences were “more than equivalent” to Lascar’s Licence—Jomon applied and was ranked first in the OX category.
He was appointed on July 28, 2017, but soon after, some unsuccessful candidates filed petitions before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), arguing that candidates like Jomon did not possess the required Lascar’s Licence as of the last date of application and should not have been considered eligible. The Tribunal agreed and ordered KPSC to recast the rank list.
Consequently, KPSC issued a show cause notice to Jomon, and despite his reply, cancelled his appointment on October 24, 2018. His challenge before the Kerala High Court was also dismissed, leading him to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments by Parties
Senior Advocate P.N. Ravindran, representing the appellant, contended that a higher qualification cannot be treated as a disqualification and cited judgments including Parvaiz Ahmed Parry v. State of J&K and Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State of Jharkhand.
He argued that since a Syrang’s Licence is superior to a Lascar’s Licence, the appellant was eligible and his selection could not be faulted. Additionally, the failure to implead Jomon in the original applications before the Tribunal, despite the fact that his rights were affected, rendered the proceedings defective.
In response, Advocate G. Prakash Nair for the KPSC and Advocate Nishe Rajan Shonker for the State of Kerala contended that eligibility must strictly conform to the advertisement and statutory rules. Allowing Syrang Licence holders without issuing a corrigendum would have violated Article 16 (equality of opportunity), depriving similarly placed candidates of a fair chance to apply.
Key Observations and Decisions
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that:
“Though over-qualification is not a disqualification per se, it does not imply that a higher qualification is an automatic substitute for the specific qualification prescribed by statutory rules.”
The Court noted that Rule 6 of the Special Rules for the Kerala State Water Transport Subordinate Service clearly required a current Lascar’s Licence. The advertisement faithfully reproduced this statutory requirement. The Court held:
“Qualifications statutorily laid down cannot be diluted by what the Director felt should be considered… It is the statutorily prescribed qualifications that should prevail.”
Addressing the issue of fairness, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Court explained that allowing Syrang Licence holders to compete in the Lascar recruitment—without public notification—tilted the balance unfairly against candidates who were qualified but less academically privileged.
It also noted the practical consequences:
“If all the vacant posts of Lascar are filled up by persons having Syrang’s licence… the persons holding Lascar’s licence would never secure any public employment. That could not have been the intention of a welfare State.”
After extensively examining the rules and precedents, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the decisions of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and Kerala High Court. It concluded:
“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.”
The Bench refused to invoke Article 142 to regularize the appellant’s appointment and reiterated that “law is well-settled that an appointment made contrary to the statute/statutory rule would be void.”
Accordingly, the cancellation of Jomon’s appointment as Boat Lascar was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed without costs.
