A previously completed diploma does not constitute pursuing a higher qualification on the application date.

The petitioner applied for Group IV posts in the Madras High Court Service under the recruitment notification dated 6 April 2025.

He passed the written examination but was disqualified before the skill test and certificate verification on the ground that he was overqualified because he had completed a three-year Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in 2021.

The notification prescribed a maximum qualification of Higher Secondary (+2) and required candidates to undertake that they were not possessing or pursuing a higher qualification as of the application date.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner’s completed diploma, obtained in 2021, disqualified him as possessing a higher qualification under clause 4(B) of the recruitment notification.

2. Whether the petitioner was pursuing a higher qualification on the date of his application, 9 April 2025, so as to be ineligible under clause 4(B).

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review the legality of administrative decisions.

Clause 4(B) of the recruitment notification required candidates to have no qualification above Higher Secondary and to undertake that, as of the application date, they were not possessing or pursuing a higher qualification than Higher Secondary or its equivalent.

The Court interpreted these as distinct requirements: the selection authorities had to assess both whether a candidate possessed a higher qualification and whether the candidate was pursuing one on the application date.

The petitioner had completed his diploma in 2021 and was not pursuing any higher qualification when he applied in 2025.

The Court read clause 4(B) as addressing possession of a higher qualification and the pursuit of one as of the application date; it did not treat a previously completed diploma as disqualifying in the petitioner’s circumstances, particularly since he did not hold a Higher Secondary qualification.

The rejection therefore did not fall within either disqualifying condition identified by the Court and was erroneous.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.