Supreme Court Rules on Eligibility for Lascar Post: Higher Qualification Not Valid Without Current Lascar Licence

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Jomon K.K. vs. Shajimon P. & Ors., addressing the critical issue of whether a candidate holding a higher qualification (Syrang’s licence) could be considered eligible for a post that specifically required a current Lascar’s licence. The judgment, delivered on April 2, 2025, by Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant, Jomon K.K., and upheld the decision of the Kerala High Court.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an advertisement dated October 17, 2012, issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for filling up 12 vacant posts of Boat Lascar under the Kerala State Water Transport Department. The essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement were:

Literacy in Malayalam, Tamil, or Kannada.
Possession of a current Lascar’s licence.

The appellant, Jomon K.K., held a Syrang’s licence, which he argued was a higher qualification than a Lascar’s licence. Based on a letter from the Director of Ports dated October 9, 2012, which stated that Syrang’s licence could be considered equivalent to a Lascar’s licence, the appellant applied for the post and was eventually selected and appointed as a Boat Lascar on July 28, 2017.

Legal Proceedings

However, unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection process before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, arguing that the inclusion of candidates without a current Lascar’s licence was illegal. The Tribunal allowed the petitions and directed the KPSC to recast the ranked list, leading to the cancellation of the appellant’s appointment. The appellant then approached the Kerala High Court, which dismissed his writ petitions, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Jomon K.K.)

The appellant’s senior counsel, Mr. P.N. Ravindran, made the following key arguments:

Higher Qualification Not a Disqualification: He contended that a higher qualification (Syrang’s licence) should not disqualify a candidate from being considered for a post requiring a lower qualification (Lascar’s licence). He relied on precedents like Parvaiz Ahmed Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State of Jharkhand.
Non-Joinder as a Party: The appellant argued that he was not impleaded as a respondent in the original applications before the Tribunal, and thus, the Tribunal’s order adversely affecting him was passed behind his back.
Exercise of Power Under Article 142: He urged the Supreme Court to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant him relief, given the peculiar circumstances of the case.

Respondent’s Arguments (KPSC and State of Kerala)

The respondents, represented by Mr. Nair and Mr. Nishe Rajan Shonker, countered the appellant’s claims as follows:

Statutory Requirements: They emphasized that the advertisement and the Special Rules of 1975 explicitly required a current Lascar’s licence, and any deviation would amount to a violation of statutory provisions.
Fraud on Public: Citing District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, they argued that allowing candidates with higher qualifications to apply would deprive other eligible candidates of a fair opportunity, constituting a fraud on public employment.
No Equivalence: They asserted that the Director’s letter could not override the statutory rules, and the equivalence of Syrang’s licence to Lascar’s licence was not legally valid.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the facts and legal principles involved in the case. Here are the key points from the judgment:

1. Non-Joinder of Necessary Party

The Court acknowledged that the appellant was not impleaded in the original proceedings before the Tribunal, which was a procedural lapse. However, it noted that the appellant did not immediately challenge the Tribunal’s order and instead responded to the show-cause notice. The Court held:

“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.”

2. Statutory Qualifications and Advertisement

The Court emphasized that the advertisement and the Special Rules of 1975 clearly mandated a current Lascar’s licence as an essential qualification. It observed:

“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.”

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that his Syrang’s licence could substitute the requirement of a current Lascar’s licence, stating that the statutory rules could not be diluted by administrative communications.

3. Equality of Opportunity

The Court highlighted the importance of equality in public employment, as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. It noted that allowing candidates with Syrang’s licence to compete for Lascar posts would unfairly disadvantage those who only possessed a Lascar’s licence. The Court remarked:

“If persons holding Syrang’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 would be quite high.”

4. Distinguishing Precedents

The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the appellant, such as Parvaiz Ahmed Parry and Chandra Shekhar Singh, on the grounds that those cases involved interpretations of equivalent qualifications, whereas the present case involved a clear statutory requirement that could not be bypassed.

5. Exercise of Power Under Article 142

The Court declined to exercise its powers under Article 142 to grant relief to the appellant, stating:

“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

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Kerala High Court’s decision. It ruled that the appellant’s appointment was invalid as he did not possess the mandatory current Lascar’s licence on the last date for receiving applications. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that statutory qualifications cannot be compromised, and higher qualifications do not automatically render a candidate eligible for a post with specific requirements.

The case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to statutory rules in public employment and the need to ensure a level playing field for all candidates.

Petitioner Name: Jomon K.K..
Respondent Name: Shajimon P. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 02-04-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: jomon-k.k.-vs-shajimon-p.-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-04-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipankar Datta
See all petitions in Judgment by Manmohan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category