Recruiting higher qualified candidates in lower posts against social justice: HC

Justice SM Subramaniam’s observation came while dismissing a plea moved by a woman candidate challenging her rejection of application for the post of junior engineer called by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited. While the minimum qualification prescribed was a diploma, she had an engineering degree after making the application based on the diploma she initially possessed.

In the event of not prescribing the maximum qualification, the opportunities of the youth with minimum prescribed qualification were taken away, the judge said. “They are deprived of their opportunities, as they are not competent to compete with the higher qualified candidates,” he held.

Pointing out that candidates with higher qualifications could not be equated with the candidates possessing lower qualification, Justice Subramaniam said: “Thus, the equal opportunity clause contemplated is infringed as far as the candidates possessing lower qualification is concerned. Their fundamental rights are violated. They are deprived of their opportunities to secure public employments, even for lower posts.” Further, calling on the governments to seriously consider these issues and take a decision with reference to the cadre, nature of job responsibility, etc., while prescribing the educational qualifications and criteria for selection to various posts, the judge in his order also held that public administration was now suffering on account of selecting higher qualified candidates for lower posts.

Those holding bachelor’s, postgraduate and engineering degrees are appointed to the posts of office assistants, sweepers, scavengers and residential assistants in High Court and many other posts in other Departments, he said.

“Yet another example is the police, which is recruiting candidates to the post of ‘Grade-II police constables’ with educational qualifications of MA, MSc, M Com, BE, B Tech, ME, and even MBBS. It is an unfortunate situation,” Justice Subramaniam added while noting that administration was now struggling to extract work from those higher qualified candidates.

Based on this, the court sought public administration to revisit the situation to uphold the Constitutional perspectives, and suo motu impleaded Chief Secretary and High Court Registrar General for the limited purpose of taking an appropriate decision in recruitment to public posts.