Overqualified applicants for a post don’t deserve preference: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that overqualified persons for the post are not necessarily entitled to the post requiring a lower qualification, and the free choice of the employing institution must be respected.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Shahid Waheed disposed of petitions and upheld the verdict of the Lahore High Court that had held that the petitioners did not meet the requirement of the advertisement and, secondly, that they, being overqualified for the post, were not suitable to it.

The five-page verdict authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah held that recruitments, therefore, are to be made strictly by the criteria in the advertisement and the recruitment policy of the respondent company, and any deviation therefrom would allow entry to ineligible persons and deprive many eligible candidates.

“We hold that the autonomy, agency, and free choice of the employing institution must be respected and be allowed to recruit according to the criteria advertised, and anyone overqualified for the said post must be entertained by the employing institution; the same being an institutional policy, the Court must refrain from interfering in the internal governance of institutions,” the judgment held. The court disposed of the petition after upholding the judgment of the Lahore High Court; however, it held that this shall not affect the appointment of the petitioners, who shall continue to work as per the terms and conditions of their appointment as agreed by the respondent company.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioners Waqas Aslam and others had applied for the post of Line Superintendent Grade-I (BPS-15) at Lahore Electric Supply Company Limited (LESCO) in pursuance of an advertisement in 2015. The petitioners were not considered for the said post on the ground that they did not meet the eligibility criteria and selection requirements as per the advertisement. The refusal on behalf of the respondent company was challenged by the petitioners through a constitutional petition, which was allowed by the learned single judge, and the respondent company was directed to appoint the petitioners to the said post.

The respondents challenged the same before the Division Bench of the High Court through an intra-court appeal, which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated November 21, 2019, holding that the petitioners did not meet the requirement of the advertisement and, secondly, that the petitioners were overqualified for the post and were, therefore, unsuitable to the said position.

The petitioners, later, challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court before the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners hold a BS in Electrical Engineering and are overqualified for the post advertised as the required qualification for the CP No. 4806 of 2019, etc. posts is a Diploma in Associate Engineering (Electrical) with a “B” grade from any government polytechnic institute. He submitted that being overqualified does not debar them from applying for the said post, and the policy of the respondent company and the impugned judgment is, therefore, not sustainable.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent company (LESCO) submitted that the respondent company specified the eligibility criteria and qualifications for the post of LS. Matric with three years of DAE with a “B” grade from any government polytechnic institute is required, as is three years of trade experience in any supervisory position in any electric concern. As far as the qualification is concerned, he submitted that it is not within the domain of the court to compare the BS degree with the DAE and further that the petitioners do not have the required three years of experience of trade in any supervisory post in any electric concern.

Therefore, having failed to meet the criteria advertised, the petitioners are not entitled to be appointed to the post of LS. “We have noticed that the respondent company had publicly advertised various posts, including 89 posts of LS, clearly specifying the eligibility criteria or qualification required for the said posts,” says the judgment.

The court noted that eligibility criteria settled by the respondent company and duly advertised in the public advertisement represent a policy decision of the respondent company, adding that in prescribing qualifications for a post and determining eligibility criteria, the employing institution is best suited to assess its needs based on the function and nature of the post, the aptitude or suitability to fulfil such requirements, and the qualification required for the post.

“This being an internal policy decision of the respondent company, judicial review must tread carefully and must not be extended to expand the ambit of the prescribed eligibility criteria, as has been rightly held in the impugned judgment,” says the judgment.

The judgment held that it is not for the court to examine the qualifications and eligibility in a recruitment process, adding that the court, at best, can look into the legality of the recruitment process but cannot delve deeper into the design and needs of the employing institution or second guess their selection criteria and job requirements.

“It is also not open to the courts to embark upon comparing various degrees held by the applicants with the advertised qualifications and carry out the function of an employer by carrying out the comparison of the said qualifications,” says the judgment.

The court held that it is a specific expert area and can be best resolved by the institution itself according to the suitability and requirements of a certain post as designed and desired by the employer.

“Therefore, there is no force in the contention that since the petitioners possess a higher qualification than what has been advertised, they are to be necessarily considered eligible for the post,” the court held.

Furthermore, the court held that inducting candidates possessing a higher qualification than the advertised criteria for LS would also have a social impact as it would deprive people with a lesser education of employment opportunities and encourage people with a higher qualification.

“It will cause injustice to those applicants who possess a DAE, the prescribed qualification in the advertisement because applicants with a higher qualification would seek automatic preference based on their qualification even when such qualification is not prescribed in the advertisement,” the judgment held.

The court ruled that having overqualified people as LS will also disrupt the institution’s operations and affect its organisational hierarchy, adding that the court must consider socio-economic perspectives to ensure that employment opportunities are created for all tiers of society.

“The Division Bench of the High Court has, therefore, rightly repelled the contention of discrimination by placing reliance on judgments of this court,” says the judgment, adding that the eligibility criteria, advertised by the recruitment policy of the respondent company, create a distinct class of persons who are DAE holders and are eligible to apply for the post of LS, whereas the petitioners who do not hold such qualifications do not belong to the said class of candidates.

“Such an internal policy provides social justice by opening up employment at different tiers; therefore, recruitments are to be made strictly by the criteria in the advertisement and the recruitment policy of the respondent company, and any deviation therefrom would allow entry to ineligible persons and deprive many eligible candidates,” says the judgment.

The judgment held that applicants not possessing such a qualification, albeit possessing some other higher qualification, are ineligible unless the employing institution’s recruitment policy caters to applicants who possess a higher qualification.

In the present case, the petitioners also do not have three years of working experience, and on this score alone, they do not meet the advertised criteria,” says the judgment. However, it held that the learned counsel for the respondent company has been gracious enough to state that the petitioners, having worked for the institution for the last six years with an unblemished service record, do not oppose their appointment at this stage of their careers.