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 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 to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post. [Para 36] Public employment – Equality of opportunity – Absence of – Effect – Appellant did not hold a current Lascar’s licence, as required, but was the holder of a Syrang’s licence (superior to Lascar’s licence) – Appellant was appointed as “Boat Lascar” however, his appointment was later cancelled:
Held: The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appellant but who had not applied for the post because they were unaware of the fact that persons not having a current Lascar’s licence would also be eligible to apply and compete in the process – 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 – If persons holding Syrang’s licence who are better equipped than persons holding Lascar’s licence are allowed to apply and participate in the process for appointment on the post of Lascar, the probability of the persons holding Lascar’s licence being outperformed by the persons holding Syrang’s licence would be quite high – In case all the vacant posts of Lascar are filled up by persons having Syrang’s licence but not having a current Lascar’s licence as per the statutory requirement, that would pose a real difficulty for persons not so fortunate and lacking in higher intelligence, abilities and intellect, as they would cease to have a level playing field of competing with other similarly qualified candidates, and left to compete with candidates having higher qualifications despite the zone of consideration having been specially carved out for holders of current Lascar’s licence – If, in case, all the vacant posts of Lascar are filled up by persons having Syrang’s licence and such holders of Syrang’s licence do not participate in the process for direct recruitment to the post of Syrang, it is fairly likely that the persons holding Lascar’s licence would never secure any public employment which could not have been the intention of a welfare State. [Paras 26, 27] Constitution of India – Art. 142 – Exercise of power under – When not warranted – Discussed. [Paras 38-40]
Code of Civil Procedure – Non-joinder of a necessary party – Special Rules of 1975 for the Kerala State Water Transport Subordinate Service (Operating Wing) – Possession of a current Lascar’s licence was an essential qualification for posts of “Boat Lascar” – Appellant was the holder of a Syrang’s licence, license superior to Lascar’s Licence – He was selected however, while he was awaiting offer of appointment, applications were filed in the Administrative Tribunal inter alia to declare candidates not possessing current Lascar’s Licence on the last date for receipt of applications as ineligible – Appellant was not impleaded in the proceedings despite being a necessary party – Appellant appointed – Tribunal allowed applications – Appellant’s appointment was cancelled – Tribunal’s order challenged by the appellant, writ petitions dismissed by High Court:
Held: After appearing in a competitive examination and upon being selected, the appointees become an identified category and that if the rights of such appointees forming part of such identified category are to be affected by any determination, they should be impleaded in the proceedings as necessary parties – The non-joinder permits them to take the plea that the impugned order does not bind them – However, in the present case, the appellant did not immediately challenge the Tribunal’s order and challenged it only after his service came to be terminated – He took a chance of favourable consideration of his case by responding to the show cause – Having taken a chance and not being successful, he cannot, thereafter, succeed before this Court on the ground of his non-joinder as a necessary party. [Paras 17, 19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey (2007) 4 SCC 54. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.