A candidate is disqualified for a higher qualification only if possessed or pursued on the application date.

The petitioner applied for Group IV posts in the Madras High Court Service under the recruitment notification dated 06.04.2025.

After passing the written examination, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he possessed or was pursuing a higher qualification, as he had enrolled in a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering course in 2009 and left during the final year in 2012.

He contended that he had not completed the diploma and was not pursuing it when he applied on 15.08.2025.

He challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner’s incomplete diploma course disqualified him as a candidate possessing a higher educational qualification than the maximum prescribed.

Whether the petitioner was pursuing a higher qualification as of the date he submitted his application, thereby attracting the disqualification in Clause 4(B) of the recruitment notification.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the basis for the Court’s judicial review of the impugned rejection.

Clause 4(B) of the recruitment notification prescribed a minimum qualification of a pass in Standard VIII, subject to a maximum qualification of Standard XII or its equivalent, and required candidates not to possess or pursue a higher qualification than Higher Secondary as of the date of application.

The Court construed this clause as containing two distinct requirements: a candidate must not possess a higher qualification and must not be pursuing one on the application date.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The petitioner possessed Higher Secondary qualification but had not completed the diploma course.

The Transfer Certificate showed that he had left the course in 2012, well before submitting his application in 2025.

Applying the two requirements in Clause 4(B), the Court concluded that the petitioner neither possessed the higher qualification nor was pursuing it on the relevant date.

His past enrolment in an incomplete course therefore did not bring him within the disqualification.

It allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection order dated 06.07.2026, and directed that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the remaining selection process in accordance with the recruitment notification and applicable Service Rules.

No costs were ordered.