Govt. jobs can be denied to ‘overqualified’ candidates: HC
Legal Correspondent
CHENNAI, July 12, 2019 00:00 IST
Applicable where maximum qualification is prescribed
The Madras High Court on Thursday held that applications of “overqualified” candidates can be rejected for public recruitment if the appointing authority had prescribed the maximum educational qualification expected of the applicants in view of the nature of the job for which they were to be recruited.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan held so while dismissing a writ petition filed by an engineering graduate challenging the rejection of her candidature for the job of Train Operator/Station Controller by Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. (CMRL) since the qualification expected was only a diploma and nothing beyond that.
“It is not denied that there is an existence of unemployment problem but when there is a clear prescription barring over-qualified candidates from applying, the candidature can be rejected,” the judge said.
He pointed out that candidates, better qualified than the petitioner, might not have applied for the job due to such prescription.
On the same day, Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the High Court delivered a separate judgment in a different case reiterating his view that appointment of educationally overqualified individuals was one of the reasons for the growing trend of indiscipline and insubordination in government service. The judge had first taken the view in a verdict delivered by him on March 26 this year.
Remaining steadfast on it, the judge on Thursday directed the State government to henceforth prescribe not just minimum qualification but also maximum qualification while making recruitment especially to Group III and IV services.
Articles 14 and 16
He was of the view that in the constitutional perspective, appointment of overqualified persons should be construed as a violation of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality in matters of public employment) of the Constitution.
“Equality among equals is the constitutional mandate. Unequals cannot be treated equally,” the judge had observed in his verdict.
Legal Correspondent
CHENNAI, July 12, 2019 00:00 IST
Applicable where maximum qualification is prescribed
The Madras High Court on Thursday held that applications of “overqualified” candidates can be rejected for public recruitment if the appointing authority had prescribed the maximum educational qualification expected of the applicants in view of the nature of the job for which they were to be recruited.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan held so while dismissing a writ petition filed by an engineering graduate challenging the rejection of her candidature for the job of Train Operator/Station Controller by Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. (CMRL) since the qualification expected was only a diploma and nothing beyond that.
“It is not denied that there is an existence of unemployment problem but when there is a clear prescription barring over-qualified candidates from applying, the candidature can be rejected,” the judge said.
He pointed out that candidates, better qualified than the petitioner, might not have applied for the job due to such prescription.
On the same day, Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the High Court delivered a separate judgment in a different case reiterating his view that appointment of educationally overqualified individuals was one of the reasons for the growing trend of indiscipline and insubordination in government service. The judge had first taken the view in a verdict delivered by him on March 26 this year.
Remaining steadfast on it, the judge on Thursday directed the State government to henceforth prescribe not just minimum qualification but also maximum qualification while making recruitment especially to Group III and IV services.
Articles 14 and 16
He was of the view that in the constitutional perspective, appointment of overqualified persons should be construed as a violation of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality in matters of public employment) of the Constitution.
“Equality among equals is the constitutional mandate. Unequals cannot be treated equally,” the judge had observed in his verdict.
No comments:
Post a Comment