Government employment
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Court orders
Overqualified person can be debarred from job: SC
AmitAnand.Choudhary, June 4, 2026: The Times of India
New Delhi : Sometimes overqualification becomes a disqualification. At a time when highly qualified people, including PhD holders, are competing for class IV govt jobs, the Supreme Court has said a person could be disqualified for a job if he holds a qualification beyond the maximum prescribed qualification.
Noting that an employer’s need to have the right people at the right place does not always mean those higher qualified, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said there is nothing wrong in govt’s decision putting a cap on the qualification for a post and disqualifying those holding higher degrees.
“The rationale behind prescribing an upper limit of qualification is both reasonable and equitable, namely, 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. Such a policy has consistently been upheld by the courts. Thus, when the post was specifically intended for candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity,” the bench said.
It passed the order while upholding termination of job of a bank employee on the ground that he was graduate at the time of joining while the job specification stipulated the candidate should possess the qualification of passing 8th standard, but should not have passed 12th standard or acquired qualification.
“..though we may have sympathy for the respondent, the conduct attributed to him and the settled position of law leave us with no option but to interfere with the impugned judgment.”
Waiting lists/ waitlists
Note on grammar: - British English tends to prefer the term “waiting list(s). American English increasingly uses waitlist(s), especially in casual, digital, or institutional contexts (universities, apps, ticketing systems).
Waitlists do not guarantee hiring: HC
Rajesh Kumar Pandey TNN, January 4, 2026: The Times of India
Prayagraj : A waitlisted candidate has no absolute right for being considered for appointment and that a waitlist cannot be for an indefinite period, Allahabad high court has ruled.
Dismissing a petition filed by Nitish Maurya and four others, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery said in its order in Nov, “It is well settled that a person in waiting list has no absolute right for consideration to get appointed as well as that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for unlimited period or a particular selection process cannot remain pending for unlimited period.”
The petitioners had participated in a selection process for posts of assistant teachers (LT Grade) in privately managed, recognized and aided higher secondary schools advertised by Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj. Initially, petitioners did not appear in the merit list or the waiting list.
The petitioners approached the high court where directions were issued to the Board to fill up all vacancies in the state through the procedure detailed by the court. The state preferred a special appeal against the order of the single-judge bench wherein it was ordered that all vacancies be filled up by the selected candidates who had not joined anywhere and also by waitlisted candidates by giving them options to choose regarding placement in such institutions/colleges.
Accordingly, a fresh panel of candidates was to be prepared. Secretary, UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj, issued a communication to director of education (secondary) regarding counselling on vacant posts under the waiting list and thereafter the process was completed with the counselling the selected candidates as well. Subsequently, an order was passed stating that there was no need to modify the earlier waitlist. This order was challenged before the HC.
