JOMON K.K.versusSHAJIMON P. & ORS. ETC.

                  [2025] 5 S.C.R. 369 : 2025 INSC 425

                               Jomon K.K.
                                    v.
                          Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.
                   (Civil Appeal No(s). 4499-4500 of 2025)
                                   02 April 2025
                [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Whether the appellant who did not hold a current Lascar’s licence
       but was the holder of a Syrang’s licence (superior to Lascar’s
       licence) could have been considered qualified to participate in the
       recruitment process for the post of “Boat Lascar” under Kerala
       State Water Transport Department and appointed as “Boat Lascar”.

                                    Headnotes†
       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
* Author
370                                                               [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       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:
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                             371

                    Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


     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
372                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       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]

                               Case Law Cited
       Parvaiz Ahmed Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [2015] 12 SCR
       810 : (2015) 17 SCC 709; Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v.
       State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 595 – distinguished.
       District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare
       Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [1990] 2
       SCR 559 : (1990) 3 SCC 655 – held applicable.
       Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission
       [2008] 4 SCR 559 : (2008) 7 SCC 153 – relied on.
       Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr. [1998]
       2 SCR 795 : 1998 4 SCC 409; P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of
       Kerala and Ors. [2003] 2 SCR 653 : (2003) 3 SCC 541; K. Ajit
       Babu v. Union of India [1997] Supp. 3 SCR 56 : (1997) 6 SCC
       473; Rama Rao v. M. G. Maheshwara Rao [2007] 9 SCR 446 :
       (2007) 14 SCC 54; Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 16 SCC
       187; Kulwant Singh v. Dayaram [2014] 11 SCR 1053 : (2015) 3
       SCC 177; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [2007] 3 SCR
       95 : (2007) 4 SCC 54 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
       Special Rules of 1975 for the Kerala State Water Transport
       Subordinate Service (Operating Wing); Kerala Inland Vessels
       Rules, 2010; Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958;
       Constitution of India; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                                    373

                       Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


                                      List of Keywords
      Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC); Kerala State Water
      Transport Department; Boat Lascar; Current lascar’s licence;
      “Current”; Syrang’s licence; Eligibility criteria; Essential qualification;
      Public employment; Recruitment process; Overqualification;
      Higher qualifications than what was required; Distinct class;
      Nature of duties; Nature of service; Statutory prescription;
      Equality of opportunity in public employment; Sine qua non;
      Fair and transparent selection process; Over-qualification not a
      disqualification; Lack of public employment opportunities; Over
      qualified candidates; Non-joinder of necessary parties; Identified
      category; Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

                                     Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4499-4500
      of 2025
      From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2019 of the High Court
      of Kerala at Ernakulam in OPKAT Nos. 153 and 154 of 2019

                                 Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant:
      P. N Ravindran, Sr. Adv., P. S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari,
      Ms. Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M J.
      Advs. for the Respondents:
      Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Vipin
      Nair, Mohd Aman Alam, Aditya Narendranath, Mrs. M.B.Ramya,
      Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Mrs. Deeksha Gupta.

                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                           Judgment
      Dipankar Datta, J.

      The appeal
1.    These appeals, by special leave, take exception to the common
      judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2019 of the High Court of
      Kerala at Ernakulam dismissing the appellant’s writ petitions.1


1    O.P.(KAT) No. 153 of 2019 and O.P.(KAT) No. 154 of 2019
374                                                             [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Facts
2.     Facts giving rise to these appeals, which are not in dispute, are these:
       a.     An advertisement dated 17th October, 2012 was published by
              the Secretary of Kerala Public Service Commission2 inviting
              applications from interested candidates for filling up 12 vacant
              posts of “Boat Lascar” under the Kerala State Water Transport
              Department.3 The method of appointment was indicated as
              ‘direct recruitment’ and the qualifications stipulated therein
              read as follows:
              7. Qualifications:
              (1) Literacy in Malayalam or Tamil or Kannada
              (2) Possession of Current Lascar’s Licence
              Note :- Candidates should possess current Lascar’s Licence
              on the last date for receipt of applications, during Practical Test
              and Interview also.
       b.     Incidentally, in terms of the Special Rules of 1975 4 for the
              Kerala State Water Transport Subordinate Service (Operating
              Wing),5 the service would consist of 3 classes of officers. While
              Class I comprised 2 categories, Classes II and III comprised 3
              categories, viz. Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3.
              Syrang, Driver and Lascar are listed at Categories 1, 2 and 3,
              respectively, of Class III. In terms of the Schedule appended
              to the Special Rules, the post of Syrang can be filled up either
              by direct recruitment or by promotion from among Lascars in
              the ratio of 1:1 whereas appointment on the post of Lascar is
              entirely by direct recruitment. It is also provided in the Schedule
              that while literacy in Malayalam or Tamil or Kannada is the
              common qualification required for appointment as Syrang as
              well as Lascar, an individual aspiring for the post of Syrang must
              possess current Syrang’s licence while an individual aspiring
              for appointment on the post of Lascar is similarly required to
              possess a current Lascar’s Licence.


2    KPSC
3    the department
4    the Special Rules
5    Subordinate Service
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                               375

                    Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


     c.      The licence noted above is a certificate of competency that is
             referred to in Chapter III of the Kerala Inland Vessels Rules,
             2010. In terms thereof, any aspiring individual fulfilling the
             qualifications statutorily prescribed is issued a certificate of
             competency upon succeeding in the “viva voce examination”
             that is conducted either for a Syrang’s licence or a Lascar’s
             licence. Inter alia, while a person aspiring for a Syrang’s licence
             is required to be 10th standard pass, it is 8th standard pass for
             anyone aspiring for a Lascar’s licence.
     d.      By a letter dated 9th October, 2012 addressed to the Director
             of the Department, the Director of Ports 6 conveyed to the
             following effect:
             …
             This is to communicate formally that the Syrang, Master
             and Driver Certificate issued by the Chief Examiner under
             the KIV Rules· 2010 is a certificate superior to Lascar
             Certificate. Hence those who possess Syrang, Master and
             Driver Certificate will be proficient in Lascar work also. Thus
             Syrang and Master Certificate can be considered more
             than equivalent to Lascar Certificate and such persons
             are eligible for the job ‘lacer’ (sic, lascar) also.
             This communication is issued based on the representation
             received from a few candidates who applied to the Public
             Service Commission for Lascar job in order to enable
             them to complete the application process. Copy of their
             representation is enclosed. However the final selection
             may be done based on practical test, on the skills required,
             type of vessel and other requirements of the organization.
             …
     e.      The appellant was the holder of a Syrang’s licence, which was
             valid when he noticed the advertisement.
     f.      Perceiving that possession of a Syrang’s licence makes him
             eligible to apply for the post of Lascar which, incidentally,
             happens to be the feeder post for promotion to the post of


6   the Director
376                                                             [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


               Syrang, the appellant offered his candidature and acquitted
               himself creditably resulting in his name figuring at serial number
               1 (OX category) in the “Ranked List” which was circulated vide
               No. 257/17/ERVI and brought into force with effect from 22nd
               February, 2017. He had secured 45.67 marks. Based on such
               rank, the Secretary, KPSC informed the appellant vide letter
               dated 2nd May, 2017 as follows:
               …
               You are informed that you have been advised for
               recruitment as Boat Lascar on Rs.8,960 -14,260/- in the
               above Department against BC Turn. The selection is
               subject to Rule 3(c) and 10(b) of the Kerala State and
               Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.
               Further instructions will be issued to you in due course by
               the above Department.
               …
       g.      While the appellant was awaiting an offer of appointment, on 8th
               May, 2017 and 27th July, 2017, two sets of original applications
               under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 19857 were
               filed before the Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam Benches
               of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.8
       h.      The prayer in O.A. No. 857 of 2017 was for a declaration that
               inclusion of ineligible candidates, who do not possess the
               essential qualification, is oppressive, arbitrary and illegal; a
               direction be issued to restructure the “Ranked List” by removing
               all such ineligible candidates; and to pass incidental orders. In
               OA (EKM) 1566 of 2017, similarly, the Tribunal was urged to
               declare candidates who did not have valid and current Lascar’s
               licence as on 17th October, 2012, i.e., the last date for receipt
               of applications, as not eligible to be included in the “Ranked
               List” as well as for issuance of a direction to KPSC to recast
               the “Ranked List” by excluding the candidates not possessing
               valid Lascar’s licence on 17th October, 2012.



7   O.A. No. 857 of 2017 and O.A. (EKM) No. 1566 of 2017
8   Tribunal
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                                    377

                        Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


     i.      Importantly, in OA No. 857 of 2017, no private party figured
             in the array of respondents and there were only three official
             respondents (Director of the department, the Director and
             KPSC). In OA (EKM) No. 1566 of 2017, apart from the official
             respondents, only 5 of the several selected candidates were
             joined as respondents. The appellant was not one among the five
             private respondents who were impleaded in the said application.
     j.      During the pendency of the original applications before the
             Tribunal, the appellant came to be appointed on 28th July, 2017
             as “Boat Lascar”.
     k.      The reply statement filed by the Director before the Tribunal
             on 20th February, 2018 is extracted hereunder:
                       “2. Port Department is implementing KIV Rules 2010.
                       Director of Ports is the competent Authority to oversee
                       the various regulations, under the provisions of KIV
                       Rules 2010. KIV Rules insist that the MASTER,
                       DRIVER AND SYRANG certificates will be issued only
                       after 2 years from the date of issue of Lascar certificate
                       by the Chief Examiner, Department of Ports. So the
                       persons who got competency certificates for Master,
                       Driver and Syrang also have sufficient eligibilities to
                       be the boat lascar. The above competency certificate
                       holders are also eligible to apply for the post of Lascar
                       and it is stated by the Director of Ports in the letter
                       No.B3-389/2011 dated 9.10.2012.”
     l.      In due course, the original applications were heard by the
             Tribunal. Vide its judgment and order dated 9th March, 2018,9
             the Tribunal allowed both the original applications and directed
             KPSC to recast the “Ranked List” and to cancel the advice to
             appoint ineligible candidates.
     m.      Acting in pursuance of the Tribunal’s order, KPSC issued a
             show cause notice dated 31st July, 2018 to the appellant calling
             upon him to explain why the advice for his appointment be not
             treated as cancelled. The appellant responded thereto by his
             reply dated 10th August, 2018. Thereafter, KPSC issued an order


9   Tribunal’s order
378                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


             dated 24th October, 2018 cancelling the advice for appointment
             of the appellant following which the Director cancelled the
             appellant’s appointment as “Boat Lascar” by his order dated
             27th October, 2018.
       n.    On 3rd November, 2018, the appellant challenged the Tribunal’s
             order before the High Court in separate writ petitions. However,
             a Division Bench of the High Court by the common impugned
             judgment and order dismissed such writ petitions.

       Contentions of the parties
3.     Mr. P. N. Ravindran, learned senior counsel for the appellant, argued
       that both the Tribunal in allowing the original applications as well
       as the High Court in dismissing the writ petitions fell in error in
       not appreciating that a higher qualification could never have been
       regarded as a disqualification for appointment on the post of Lascar.
4.     Mr. Ravindran relied on the decisions in Parvaiz Ahmed Parry v.
       State of Jammu and Kashmir10 and Chandra Shekhar Singh and
       Others v. State of Jharkhand 11 in support of the contention that a
       candidate having a higher degree in the subject prescribed under
       the advertisement cannot be disqualified by reason of ineligibility for
       not possessing the required degree.
5.     Mr. Ravindran further argued that by the time the Tribunal was moved
       by the unsuccessful candidates, the appellant had not been appointed.
       However, he did figure in the “Ranked List”. During the pendency of
       the original applications, the appellant came to be appointed. Despite
       such appointment, he was not impleaded as a respondent in either
       of the two original applications filed before the Tribunal. When the
       original applications were filed, seeking exclusion of candidates
       holding Syrang’s licence and recasting of the “Ranked List”, without
       the appellant being included as a respondent, no adverse order could
       have been passed by the Tribunal qua him. Since the appellant
       was not impleaded as a respondent in the original applications, the
       same were defective and no relief could have been granted to the
       unsuccessful candidates/original applicants.



10   (2015) 17 SCC 709
11   2025 SCC OnLine SC 595
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          379

                        Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


6.    Mr. Ravindran also submitted that assuming this Court were not
      inclined to accept the claim of the appellant that he could have been
      considered for selection despite not possessing a current Lascar’s
      licence, it was contended that this was an eminently fit case for
      exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
      Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench decision in Supreme
      Court Bar Association vs Union Of India and Anr.12.
7.    Per contra, Mr. Nair, learned counsel for KPSC, contended that the
      appellant and similarly placed candidates having Syrang’s licence
      were considered for selection in view of the letter of the Director
      dated 9th October, 2012. However, the Tribunal having held that
      candidates not possessing current Lascar’s licence could not have
      been considered for selection and having directed KPSC to recast
      the “Ranked List”, the same was duly complied with resulting in
      cancellation of the advice for appointment of the appellant.
8.    Mr. Nair relied on the decision in District Collector & Chairman,
      Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v.
      M. Tripura Sundari Devi 13 for the proposition that when an
      advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment
      is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between
      the appointing authority and the appointee concerned: the aggrieved
      are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than
      the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post
      because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the
      advertisement.
9.    According to him, had it been known that anyone not having a
      Lascar’s licence but having a Syrang’s licence would be eligible for
      consideration for appointment on the post of Lascar, others having
      Syrang’s certificate could also have applied thereby enlarging the zone
      of consideration. However, keeping the process confined only to a
      select few and not extending opportunity to all others similarly situate
      like the appellant would contravene Article 16 of the Constitution and
      also amount to a fraud on public.




12   (1998) 4 SCC 409
13   (1990) 3 SCC 655
380                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


10. P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and ors.14 was also cited by
    Mr. Nair in support of his contention that anyone holding a Syrang’s
    licence could not have been considered on the ground of being more
    qualified than the holder of a Lascar’s licence, and that whether
    Syrang’s licence could be considered as appropriate for recruitment
    of a Lascar is a question which ought to be left to be considered by
    the authorities concerned. Since, in P.M. Latha (supra), this Court
    did not consider candidates having B. Ed degree as qualified for the
    vacancies advertised, which required recruitment to be made from
    candidates with TTC qualifications, he urged that dismissal of the
    appeal is the only logical conclusion.
11. Mr. Nishe Rajan Shonker, learned counsel for the State of Kerala,
    adopted the submissions of Mr. Nair.

       Question of law
12. The central question of law arising for decision on this appeal is,
    whether the appellant who did not hold a current Lascar’s licence
    but was the holder of a Syrang’s licence could have been considered
    qualified to participate in the recruitment process as well as appointed.
13. Certain notable features having a bearing on the issue to be decided
    by us are these:
       a.    The advertisement dated 15th September, 2012 did stipulate
             that only those holding a current Lascar’s licence are eligible to
             apply. At the same time, it did not specifically say that anyone
             holding a Syrang’s licence or a licence higher than a Lascar’s
             licence is not eligible to apply.
       b.    According to the Director, a Syrang’s licence is something
             superior to a Lascar’s licence and that holders of Syrang’s
             licence can be considered more than equivalent to Lascar’s
             licence, thus, being eligible for the job of Lascar also.
       c.    A communication to the above effect was made by the Director
             to KPSC, not on his own, but based on the representation
             received from a few candidates who, presumably having
             Syrang’s licences, had applied for the post of Lascar and wanted
             to compete with aspirants having Lascar’s licence.


14   2003 3 SCC 541
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           381

                        Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


      d.     Despite the appellant being selected, his name figuring in the
             “Ranked List”, he being recommended by the Secretary, KPSC
             on 2nd May, 2017 for appointment as “Boat Lascar” as well as his
             appointment on 28th July, 2017 during the pendency of the original
             applications, he was not impleaded as respondent therein.
      e.     The original applicants could not have feigned ignorance as
             to the identity of candidates possessing Syrang’s licence who
             came to be appointed; also, the Tribunal did not take the pain
             of passing appropriate orders to have them impleaded. Thus,
             the Tribunal’s order adverse to the interest of the appellant was
             effectively passed behind his back.
      f.     Despite there being a reference in the show cause notice dated
             31st July, 2018 to the Tribunal’s order, the appellant chose to
             reply to the show cause notice instead of challenging the such
             order before the High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of
             the Constitution of India.
      g.     Once the appellant’s appointment as “Boat Lascar” was
             cancelled on 27th October, 2018 by the Director, such order
             provided him a cause of action to move an original application
             before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the 1985 Act; however,
             instead of moving the Tribunal, the appellant moved the High
             Court in its writ jurisdiction, admittedly, when the Tribunal’s
             order had been acted upon.

      Analysis and Reasons
14. In our considered opinion, the High Court would have been justified
    in dismissing the writ petitions of the appellant at the threshold
    on the ground that the order of cancellation had intervened in the
    meanwhile providing a cause of action for him to move the Tribunal.
    In such original application, he could have even prayed for recall of
    the Tribunal’s order on the ground of the same having been passed
    behind his back and upon such recall, to hear him on the merits of
    the original applications. Such a course of action was available to the
    appellant in terms of the decisions of this Court in K. Ajit Babu v.
    Union of India15 and Rama Rao v. M. G. Maheshwara Rao.16


15   (1997) 6 SCC 473
16   (2007) 14 SCC 54
382                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       However, the High Court examined the appellant’s claim on merits
       leading to dismissal of his writ petitions and we too having been
       addressed on the merits of the appeals, it would be just and fair to
       answer the question that we have formulated above without taking
       too technical a view.
15. First, we propose to consider the argument touching non-joinder
    of the appellant in the proceedings before the Tribunal though,
    undoubtedly, he was a necessary party.
16. The effect of non-joinder of a necessary party in proceedings where
    an order is passed adverse to the interest of the non-party was
    considered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Ranjan Kumar v.
    State of Bihar.17
17. The decision in Ranjan Kumar (supra) was followed by the decision
    in Kulwant Singh v. Dayaram,18 where promotion to the post of
    head constables in Chandigarh Police was the subject matter of
    consideration. This Court held that 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, the
    situation commands that they should be impleaded in the proceedings
    as necessary parties. The non-joinder now permits them to take the
    plea that the impugned order does not bind them.
18. The decisions in Ranjan Kumar (supra) and Kulwant Singh (supra)
    are authorities for the proposition that selectees who are appointed
    or promoted must be arrayed as parties in the original proceedings
    where their selections are challenged. Kulwant Singh (supra) has
    taken a step further and ruled that mere awareness of pendency
    of litigation does not make the order passed by the Court/Tribunal
    interfering with the selection binding upon such appointees or
    promotees.
19. Though there can be little quarrel with the law laid down in Ranjan
    Kumar (supra) and Kulwant Singh (supra) and considering what
    has been argued by Mr. Ravindran as a proposition of law, noted
    above, to be correct, what stands out is that the appellant did


17   (2014) 16 SCC 187
18   (2015) 3 SCC 177
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          383

                    Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


     not immediately challenge the Tribunal’s order and rested on his
     oars to throw a challenge till his service came to be terminated.
     In fact, 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 us on the
     ground of his non-joinder as a necessary party. Having not initiated
     appropriate legal action that the law permitted him to take, he can
     get back his service only if the primary contention raised by Mr.
     Ravindran succeeds.
20. Next, turning to the crux of the issue, it is absolutely necessary to
    bear in mind that though the posts of Syrang and Lascar are included
    in Class III of the Subordinate Service, the requisite qualifications
    for appointment on such posts as ordained by the Special Rules
    are different. Moreover, it is specifically ordained by Rule 6 of the
    Special Rules as follows:
           “6. Other Qualifications. - No person shall be eligible for
           appointment to the categories specified in column (1) of
           the Table below by the method specified in column (2)
           unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the
           corresponding entry in column (3) thereof.”
21. As noted in the factual narrative, possession of a current Lascar’s
    licence is an essential qualification for anyone aspiring for the post of
    Lascar. This is what is laid down in column (3), i.e., the qualifications
    required; and going by what is said therein read with Rule 6, there
    can be no gainsaying that apart from those having a current Lascar’s
    licence, none else is eligible. The word “current” is also significant
    in the sense that 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 intervenes.
22. The advertisement did not require anything else other than what the
    Special Rules require. The absence of express mention that those
    holding a Syrang’s licence or a Driver’s licence which, according to the
    Director, are superior to a Lascar’s licence, is insignificant, irrelevant
    and immaterial having regard to the clear terms of Rule 6 (supra).
23. Viewed from a different angle, on a conjoint reading of Rule 6 of
    the Special Rules and the advertisement, we find both mentioning
    a particular qualification, i.e., a current Lascar’s licence, which each
    aspirant has to possess for being considered eligible to participate
384                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       in the process of selection, thereby creating a distinct class and it
       is 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. The classification
       has not been shown to be and is not unreasonable.
24. True it is, from the reply statement of the Director filed before the
    Tribunal and also from the 2010 Rules, it does appear that the
    holder of a Syrang’s licence is mandatorily required to obtain and
    have a Lascar’s licence for 2 years and, therefore, without having
    a Lascar’s licence one cannot apply for a Syrang’s licence. By the
    same analogy, it could be presumed that the holder of a Syrang’s
    licence is having the requisite eligibility to be a Lascar. However,
    what turns the tide against the appellant is the requirement of the
    ‘current’ Lascar’s licence, discussed above, which the appellant did
    not have on the last date for receiving applications.
25. We have further seen from the letter of the Director dated 9th October,
    2010 addressed to KPSC that it was not voluntary; rather, it was
    at the behest of candidates who did not possess current Lascar’s
    licence. It can well be presumed that the Director buckled under
    pressure. However, notwithstanding that, qualifications statutorily laid
    down could not have been diluted by what the Director felt should
    be considered by KPSC and, therefore, it is the statutorily prescribed
    qualifications that should prevail.
26. Mr. Nair is also right in referring to us the decision in M. Tripura
    Sundari Devi (supra). Although in such decision it was held that it
    amounts to a fraud on public to appoint candidates with qualifications
    inferior to the qualifications advertised, which is not precisely the case
    here because the appellant has higher qualifications than what was
    required, yet, the other principle of law flowing from such decision
    is squarely applicable. It has neither been shown that the Director’s
    letter dated 9th October, 2012 was given wide publicity nor has it
    been shown by the appellant that KPSC had issued any corrigendum
    vide public notice whereby the zone of consideration was enlarged
    permitting holders of a Syrang’s licence to participate in the process.
    We, thus, hold drawing inspiration from the said decision that 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          385

                    Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


     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.
27. There is one other important aspect which also cannot be lightly
    overlooked. We shall assume for a moment that though the process
    was commenced for appointment on vacant posts of Lascar, there
    was no illegality in persons having Syrang’s licence being permitted
    to participate. Of course, there could be aspirants holding Lascar’s
    licence in sufficient numbers who might not have the higher
    qualifications necessary for even appearing for a viva voce to aim at
    possessing a certificate of competency as Syrang. Those aspirants,
    holding a Lascar’s licence, might not also be so capable and/or
    competent for obtaining a Syrang’s licence. After all, all individuals are
    not blessed with the same level of intelligence, human abilities and
    intellect. The distribution of innate abilities and intellectual prowess
    being far from uniform, resulting in a diverse spectrum of human
    potential, it is axiomatic that aspirants having only a Lascar’s licence
    can never be considered for direct recruitment on any post in Class III
    of the Subordinate Service other than a Lascar. It is quite but natural
    that in the matter of observation, perception and memorisation of
    details of principles of navigation, and skill in respect of seamanship,
    there would be significant differences in the faculties of different
    individuals. If persons holding Syrang’s licence - who are obviously
    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. It could also be a distinct possibility where 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, for, 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. It is
    not that the holders of Syrang’s licence are left in the lurch. Those
    having Syrang’s licence could well compete for appointment on the
386                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       post of Syrang in the 50% direct recruitment quota along with others
       having current Syrang’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.
       That could not have been the intention of a welfare State.
28. Also, it cannot be gainsaid that 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. Thus, nothing much turns on it.
29. Law is well-settled that an appointment made contrary to the statute/
    statutory rule would be void [see: Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary
    Education Services Commission19].
30. Based on such consideration, we are ad idem with the Division Bench
    of the High Court that KPSC could not have included candidates
    with licences other than a Lascar’s licence in the “Ranked List” and
    proceed to recommend those candidates for appointment.
31. On merits, therefore, no legally protected right of the appellant having
    been affected by the impugned action, he has no valid claim.
32. We have considered the decisions of this Court in Parvaiz Ahmed
    Parry (supra) and Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra).
33. In Parvaiz Ahmed Parry (supra) the appellant therein possessed
    degrees in BSc with Forestry as one of his major subjects as well
    as MSc (Forestry). The qualification prescribed in the Advertisement
    was “BSc (Forestry) or equivalent from any university recognised
    by ICAR”. This Court held that the appellant’s qualifications were
    equivalent to the minimum prescribed qualifications and should be
    considered for the concerned post.
34. Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra) was on the question of whether
    ‘degree’ as mentioned in the advertisement therein included a post-
    graduate degree, which the appellants therein possessed. This Court


19   (2008) 7 SCC 153
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                        387

                    Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.


     applying the golden rule of interpretation held that the word ‘degree’
     would include within its scope and ambit all three degrees – bachelor’s
     degree, master’s degree and a doctorate degree – unless a specific
     expulsion has been made.
35. The said decisions are, thus, distinguishable on facts.
36. We hasten to add that 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. It has to
    be remembered that, 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. We know of 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. 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. We end by saying that each
388                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       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.
37. It is now time to consider Mr. Ravindran’s final submission that this
    is an eminent case for exercising powers under Article 142 of the
    Constitution.
38. This Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India20 held that 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.
39. Exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution would
    have been warranted in the present case if palpable injustice were
    demonstrated. Unfortunately for the appellant, despite the assiduous
    endeavour of Mr. Ravindran, we have consciously decided to confine
    our role to being the dispute-settlors.
40. We are of the considered opinion that 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.

       Conclusion
41. The appeals, accordingly, fail and are dismissed. No costs.
42. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey




20   (2007) 4 SCC 54