Person With Higher Qualification Can't Be Considered For Post Specifically Intended For Less Educated : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that suppression of higher educational qualifications for a job post exclusively reserved for lower educational qualifications amounts to depriving genuinely eligible and deserving candidates of the job.
“…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.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan.
The Court set aside the Madras High Court's order which had reinstated the Respondent, a temporary bank attendant at a Syndicate Bank, overlooking the fact that he secured an appointment to a post earmarked exclusively for candidates with qualifications up to the 10th standard by concealing the fact that he was a graduate.
The Court noted that the State, acting 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. Hence, any selection to such a post by a candidate upon suppressing his/her higher qualification deprives the otherwise eligible candidate chances to get appointed, rendering the appointment non-est in the eyes of the law, the Court said.
The court drew support from Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. and others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 381, to note that “public employment must be made available to all eligible candidates in accordance with the prescribed qualifications.”. The Court asserted that merely because a candidate is higher qualified than the requisite qualification asked for the post would not by itself grant him a right to claim such an appointment.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's/management's decision to dismiss the Respondent from the service was upheld.
Cause Title: GENERAL MANAGER (HR) & ANR VERSUS K. POOVARASAN
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AoR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Likivi K. Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Aman Gahlot, Adv. Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Azal Aekram, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Vijayan, Adv. Mr. Justin Selvakumar, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AoR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv.