Concealing Graduate Degree to Secure Lower-Rung Post Voids Appointment, Supreme Court Holds
A Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan restores the dismissal of an employee who hid his graduate qualification to obtain a post reserved for candidates with limited education.
The Supreme Court on 19 May 2026 set aside orders of the Madras High Court that had reinstated K. Poovarasan as a Temporary Attender and directed his continuity of service. The Court found that Poovarasan, a graduate, had disclosed only his Class 10 qualification when his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for a post that expressly barred candidates who had passed Class 12 or acquired any higher qualification. Allowing the appeal filed by the employer, the Court held that once it emerged that the respondent possessed qualifications beyond the permissible ceiling on the date of sponsorship, he ceased to be eligible for consideration altogether, and no subsequent action by the employer could create an enforceable right in his favour.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The appellants — General Manager (HR) and the Deputy Regional Manager & Disciplinary Authority — had dismissed Poovarasan from service on 30 October 2018. He challenged that order before the Madras High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 16 April 2025, set aside the dismissal, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, though without backwages.
The appellants carried the matter to a Division Bench of the Madras High Court by way of Writ Appeal No. 2693 of 2025. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal on 9 September 2025 and affirmed the Single Judge's order. The appellants then filed SLP(C) No. 6845 of 2026 before the Supreme Court. Leave was granted and the matter was heard by a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan.
The Employer's Case: Sponsorship Obtained on a False Footing
Counsel for the appellants argued that the requisition sent to the Employment Exchange specifically stipulated that the candidate must have passed the 8th Standard but must not have passed the 12th Standard or acquired any higher qualification. Despite being a graduate, Poovarasan disclosed in his application to the Employment Exchange only that he had passed the 10th Standard. Counsel contended this amounted to a clear suppression of material facts and constituted the foundational fraud by which the respondent secured consideration for appointment. Any subsequent selection, interview, or appointment, it was urged, could not cure such suppression or confer any right upon him.
The appellants relied on the judgment of this Court in Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 711].
The Respondent's Defence: No Deliberate Suppression
Counsel for Poovarasan submitted that at the time of filling up the attestation form there was no deliberate suppression. He pointed out that the respondent had updated his graduate qualification in another Employment Exchange and that the sponsorship of his name was made on the basis of an earlier registration in a different Employment Exchange. Counsel further argued that during service, Poovarasan had sought and obtained permission from the appellants to pursue his graduate course, which demonstrated that the employer was fully aware he possessed qualifications higher than the prescribed limit. On that basis, it was contended, the appellants could not subsequently allege suppression.
Counsel also urged the Court to take a sympathetic view given that the respondent had been in service for a considerable period and his removal at this stage would cause grave hardship to him and his family.
What the Court Held on Eligibility and the Upper Qualification Ceiling
The Court found it manifest from the communication dated 20 October 2009 sent by the appellants to the Employment Exchange that the minimum qualification was a pass in the 8th Standard and the maximum was that the candidate must not have passed the Intermediate or 12th Standard or the 10+2 Examination. The Court explained the rationale behind prescribing an upper qualification limit: such posts are intended to provide employment opportunities to persons who, owing to circumstances of life, could not pursue higher education. The State, as a model employer, is justified in reserving certain categories of posts for such persons so that they are not compelled to compete with more highly qualified candidates against whom they would ordinarily stand little chance of selection.
The Court held that permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily deprive a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity.
On the question of deliberate intent, the Court said that even assuming there was no deliberate attempt to mislead at the initial stage, the fact remained that as per the requisition only candidates not possessing qualifications higher than the prescribed limit were eligible. Once it came to light that on the date his name was sponsored, Poovarasan possessed qualifications beyond the permissible limit, he ceased to be eligible for consideration itself. Consequently, he could not have proceeded to the next stage of selection, and any subsequent action by the appellants would not create any enforceable right in his favour to continue in service.
The Attestation Form and the Inference Against Bona Fides
The Court drew attention to a further circumstance. While filling up the attestation form, despite a clear requirement to disclose all educational qualifications acquired from school onwards, Poovarasan disclosed only that he had passed the 10th Standard in the year 2012. The Court observed that had he acted in good faith and without awareness of the eligibility restriction, there would have been no reason not to disclose his entire educational record. The omission raised serious doubts regarding his bona fides.
The Court also addressed the permission granted during service to pursue graduation. Rather than supporting the respondent's case, the Court found this circumstance cut the other way: it suggested that Poovarasan intended to project that he did not possess a graduate degree at the time of entry into service and that he intended to acquire such qualification only thereafter for future career advancement. Such conduct reinforced the inference that he was conscious that disclosure of his actual qualification would have rendered him ineligible for the post.
The Court's Use of Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P.
The Court quoted at length from Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 711] to explain why the principle that over-qualification cannot be a disqualification cannot be applied rigidly or universally. The passage quoted by the Court posed a series of questions: what happens to aspirants who could not study beyond Class 12 if all posts of a lower category are filled by degree holders? What happens if the degree holder leaves for a better job after a couple of years, burdening the public exchequer with a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged to ensure that posts are filled only by those having the basic qualification for sub-serving the common good?
The Court also quoted the observation from Jomon K.K. that drew on Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54: “if an appointment is illegal, it is non-est in the eye of law” and that principles of equity and sympathy have no role to play in such cases.
The Court stated plainly: “Public employment must be made available to all eligible candidates in accordance with the prescribed qualifications.” While acknowledging sympathy for the respondent, the Court said the settled position of law left it with no option but to interfere.
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal. The order dated 16 April 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 25533 of 2019, as affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 2693 of 2025, was set aside. The order dated 30 October 2018 dismissing Poovarasan from service stands restored. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.