Jomon K.K. vs Shajimon P. 2025 INSC 425 - Public Employment - Over Qualification
Public Employment - 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- Each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post. (Para 36)
Public Employment - 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- Referred to in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54. (Para 38) An appointment made contrary to the statute/statutory rule would be void- Referred to Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (2008) 7 SCC 153].
Practice and Procedure - The effect of non-joinder of a necessary party in proceedings where an order is passed adverse to the interest of the non-party - Referred to in Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 16 SCC 187
Quotable Quotes
Lack of public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they 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? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for sub-serving the common good? Does not the State have the obligation to strive to ensure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no Court can afford to ignore.
Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment being a sine qua non for a fair and transparent selection process. (Para 26)
