The Supreme Court held that candidates possessing higher qualifications than those prescribed in the statutory rules cannot be considered eligible for recruitment if they lack the specific essential qualification mandated by the rules. The Court emphasized strict adherence to statutory qualifications in public employment to ensure equality of opportunity and prevent arbitrariness. Non-joinder of necessary parties in original proceedings does not invalidate the Tribunal’s order if the affected party fails to challenge it promptly. The Court declined to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, as the appellant’s appointment was void ab initio for non-compliance with statutory requirements. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the cancellation of the appellant’s appointment.
-
Facts of The Case:
The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued an advertisement on 17th October 2012 inviting applications for 12 vacant posts of “Boat Lascar” under the Kerala State Water Transport Department. The essential qualification prescribed was a current Lascar’s licence. The appellant, Jomon K.K., held a Syrang’s licence, which was considered superior to a Lascar’s licence by the Director of Ports, who communicated to KPSC that Syrang’s licence holders could be deemed eligible for the Lascar post. Based on this, the appellant applied, secured the highest rank, and was appointed on 28th July 2017. However, unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, arguing that only those with a current Lascar’s licence were eligible. The Tribunal allowed the challenge, directing KPSC to recast the ranked list by excluding ineligible candidates. Consequently, the appellant’s appointment was cancelled. He challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court, which dismissed his writ petitions. The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation, ruling that statutory qualifications could not be diluted, and the appellant’s higher qualification did not substitute the mandatory Lascar’s licence. The Court also noted that the appellant’s non-joinder in the original proceedings did not invalidate the Tribunal’s order since he failed to challenge it promptly. The appeals were dismissed.
-
Procedural History:
The case originated with the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), where unsuccessful candidates filed two original applications (O.A. No. 857 of 2017 and O.A. (EKM) No. 1566 of 2017) challenging the inclusion of candidates, including the appellant, who held Syrang’s licences instead of the mandatory current Lascar’s licences for the post of Boat Lascar. The Tribunal allowed these applications on 9th March 2018, directing the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) to recast the ranked list and cancel appointments of ineligible candidates. The appellant, though appointed during the pendency of these proceedings, was not impleaded as a respondent. Following the Tribunal’s order, KPSC issued a show-cause notice to the appellant, and upon his reply, cancelled his appointment on 27th October 2018. The appellant then filed writ petitions before the Kerala High Court, which were dismissed by a common judgment dated 2nd December 2019. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court via special leave petitions, which were converted into civil appeals. The Supreme Court, after examining the statutory framework and precedents, upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeals and affirming that the appellant’s appointment was void for lacking the essential qualification. The Court also declined to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, concluding that the appellant’s non-joinder in the Tribunal proceedings did not vitiate the order since he failed to challenge it promptly.
-
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations while dismissing the appeal. It emphasized that statutory qualifications prescribed for public employment must be strictly adhered to, and no deviation is permissible, even if a candidate possesses higher qualifications. The Court noted that the advertisement explicitly required a current Lascar’s licence, and the appellant’s Syrang’s licence—though superior—did not fulfill this mandatory criterion. It rejected the argument that higher qualifications could substitute essential eligibility, stating that such relaxation would distort the level playing field and violate Article 16 of the Constitution.
The Court also observed that the Director of Ports’ communication permitting Syrang’s licence holders to apply was not a valid override of statutory rules. It highlighted that public employment processes must be transparent, and any dilution of prescribed qualifications amounts to a “fraud on public trust.” Additionally, the Court noted that while the appellant’s non-joinder in the Tribunal proceedings was procedurally irregular, his failure to promptly challenge the order precluded him from relying on this defect.
Finally, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 142, holding that sympathy cannot override statutory mandates, and an illegal appointment remains void ab initio. It underscored that equitable considerations have no role when the selection process itself contravenes the law.
-
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the cancellation of the appellant’s appointment as Boat Lascar. The Court ruled that the appellant, despite holding a superior Syrang’s licence, did not meet the mandatory requirement of possessing a current Lascar’s licence as stipulated in the statutory rules and recruitment advertisement. It emphasized that statutory qualifications cannot be relaxed or substituted, even if a candidate possesses higher credentials, as this would compromise the fairness and integrity of public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court rejected the argument that the Director of Ports’ communication could override statutory mandates, deeming such ad hoc exemptions legally untenable. While acknowledging procedural irregularities in the appellant’s non-joinder before the Tribunal, the Court held that his failure to promptly challenge the Tribunal’s order barred him from contesting its validity at a belated stage. Refusing to invoke Article 142, the Court underscored that equitable relief cannot validate an appointment made in violation of statutory rules, which remains void ab initio. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that strict adherence to eligibility criteria is indispensable in public recruitment to ensure equality, transparency, and the rule of law. No costs were awarded, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.
-
Case Details:
Case Title: Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. etc. Citation: 2025 INSC 425 (Supreme Court of India) Civil Appeal No. : Civil Appeal Nos. [Not specified in text] of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7930-7931 of 2020) Date of Judgment : April 02, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Dipankar Datta AND Justice Manmohan
Download The Judgement