SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Jomon K.K. – Appellant
Versus
Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 [Arising Out Of SLP (C) Nos.7930-7931 of 2020]
Decided on : 02-04-2025
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 petitions1[O.P.(KAT) No. 153 of 2019 and O.P.(KAT) No. 154 of 2019].
FACTS
2. Facts giving rise to these appeals, which are not in dispute, are these:
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 19754[the Special Rules] for the Kerala State Water Transport Subordinate Service (Operating Wing) 5[Subordinate Service], 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.
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 Ports6[the Director] 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 Syrang, the appellant offered his candidature and acquitte
Parvaiz Ahmed Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. State of Jharkhand
Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India and Anr.
P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and ors.
K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India
Rama Rao v. M. G. Maheshwara Rao
Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar
Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission
Statutory qualifications for public employment must be strictly adhered to, and higher qualifications do not confer eligibility if specific requirements are not met.
Selection – A State instrumentality seized of solemn responsibility of making selections to public services must maintain a high standard of probity and transparency and is not expected to remain neb....
There is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisiti....
Point of Law : Division Bench has rightly set aside action of the FCI in rejecting case of original writ petitioner and has rightly directed the FCI to consider the case of original writ petitioner f....
Qualifications for public service recruitment must be fulfilled by the application deadline to ensure fair candidate selection.
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment criteria after participating in the selection process, as estoppel applies. Eligibility is determined by the employer based on stated qualifications within the....
The court affirmed that the employer determines qualification equivalence, emphasizing judicial restraint in recruitment matters.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.