On Minimum Qualification In Class-IV Jobs, High Court Upholds Employers Rights


SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has just lately noticed that any increased qualification than the one prescribed for a selected submit is probably not an acceptable qualification and that the employer, in its knowledge, is justified in excluding candidates with the next qualification from the ambit of choice, reported LiveLaw.in.

According to the report, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey noticed that the laying down of the factors of the minimal and the utmost qualification for the Class-IV submit as matric and 10+2, respectively, is neither irrational, unreasonable nor arbitrary

Essentially, the Court was coping with a letter patent attraction filed by the appellant calling into query the Single Judge order whereby he had held that the candidates with increased qualification usually are not eligible to use when the commercial discover prescribes minimal and most qualification, mentioned the report

With this, the Writ Court had declared that the appellant was overqualified for the submit of an Attendant (Class- IV) [in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service] and, subsequently, couldn’t apply for the submit in query, it reads.

Challenging the identical, he moved earlier than the Division Bench.

The report mentioned that on the outset, the Court famous that the appointment to Class-IV posts in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service must be in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Appointment to Class-IV (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2020.

The Court additionally famous {that a} authorities notification which is issued for the needs of recruitment of Class-IV posts, the minimal and most qualification shall be matric and 10+2, respectively, even the commercial notification in query additionally particularly offers for a similar qualification, reported LiveLaw.in.

Importantly, concerning the employer’s discretion to put down the qualification to a selected submit, the Court famous that the suitability and the {qualifications} for any submit should be laid down by the employer and the identical usually are not liable to be interfered with judicially, till and except the coverage resolution in that regard is discovered to be irrational or arbitrary.

Against this backdrop, referring to the case of appointments to Class-IV posts, the Court noticed thus:

“…increased qualification than the prescribed 10+2 is probably not appropriate for a lot of causes; the primary being {that a} extremely certified particular person is probably not able to discharge the menial work which is required to be performed by a Class-IV worker; secondly, if such extremely certified candidates are allowed to compete with candidates with decrease qualification, as prescribed, it’s however apparent that they are going to rating above them and would get chosen to the detriment of the candidates possessing the requisite eligibility; and thirdly, such candidates of upper qualification, if chosen, would all the time be searching for a greater job and, as quickly as they’re chosen in another higher self-discipline, they would go away the Class-IV submit rendering your entire choice as ineffective, apart from forcing the employer to get these posts re-advertised and re-filled,@ the report quoted the order issued by courtroom.

The Court additionally referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling within the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Another v. Anit Kumar Das, Civil Appeal No.3602 of 2020, whereby, it was noticed that the qualification of twelfth move for the submit of Peons within the Bank is justified as it’s a aware resolution taken by the Bank and no candidate with superior qualification could be acknowledged as eligible for the submit.

Lastly, dismissing the attraction, the Court added thus:

“What we mean to express is that higher qualification may not be a suitable qualification for every post and, if candidates with higher qualifications are excluded, the view of the learned Single Judge in this regard cannot be faulted with and said to be illegal or perverse,” reported LiveLaw.in.



Source link

Scroll to Top