Can candidate with higher qualification than basic eligibility for a post be preferred? Here's what SC says

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that employers are not universally obligated to favour candidates with qualifications exceeding a job’s basic eligibility.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision to cancel the appointment of a candidate deemed overqualified for the post of ‘Boat Lascar’ (local sailor) in the Kerala State Water Transport Department, clarifying that higher credentials alone do not guarantee preference.

Case Background

The dispute centered on Jomon KK, whose 2018 appointment as Boat Lascar was revoked after he failed to meet the mandatory requirement of a Lascar’s license. Though Jomon held a Syrang’s license, a higher qualification, the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) cited Special Rules and the job advertisement, which explicitly required a Lascar’s license.

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal and High Court backed the PSC, noting Syrang’s license holders, eligible for promotion to Syrang roles, risked sidelining Lascar-licensed candidates in recruitment.

Court’s Rationale

The bench stressed that employers must balance qualifications with role-specific needs. The apex court observed that ‘equality of opportunity is undermined if overqualified candidates dominate entry-level posts,’ while warning that allowing Syrang license holders to compete for Lascar roles could ‘outperform’ basic-qualified applicants, skewing fairness.

It further highlighted practical concerns, as overqualified hires might leave sooner for better roles, burdening employers with repeated recruitment costs.

The judgment also addressed systemic inequities, such as questioning what would happen if Master’s degree holders secure peon jobs and what becomes of those with only Class 12 credentials?

ALSO READ: Supreme Court strikes down rule ousting visually impaired in MP judicial service

No Universal Rule

While acknowledging past rulings that overqualification isn’t a disqualification, the Court refused a one-size-fits-all approach.

Employers must weigh statutory rules, job nature, and societal impact, it stated. The bench dismissed arguments to apply Article 142 for validating Jomon’s appointment, noting the PSC’s process would’ve expanded candidate pools if higher qualifications were permitted initially, a lapse violating Article 16’s equality mandate.

Broader Implications

The verdict reinforces that job criteria must align with operational needs and equitable access. By prioritizing role-specific benchmarks over academic prowess, the ruling aims to curb unfair competition while urging employers to balance merit with inclusive hiring.

As the Court concluded, that case demands scrutiny of its unique facts and that there’s no universal mandate to prefer higher qualifications.