Suppression of higher educational qualifications prescribed as a maximum limit renders public employment void ab initio.

The respondent was appointed as a Temporary Attender after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

The job requisition specifically mandated that candidates must have passed the 8th standard but must not have passed the 12th standard or acquired higher qualifications.

Although the respondent was a graduate at the time of application, he disclosed only a 10th-standard qualification to the Employment Exchange and in his subsequent attestation form.

After appointment, he sought permission to pursue graduation—implying he did not already possess the degree—which the appellants initially granted.

Upon discovering the pre-existing higher qualification, the appellants dismissed him on 30.10.2018.

The High Court of Madras (Single Judge and Division Bench) set aside the dismissal, ordering reinstatement without backwages.

1. Whether the suppression of a higher educational qualification that exceeds the prescribed maximum limit for a post constitutes a valid ground for dismissal from public employment.

2. Whether subsequent conduct, such as seeking permission to acquire a degree already held, validates the initial appointment or creates an equitable right to remain in service.

The State, as a model employer, has the right to prescribe an upper limit for educational qualifications to safeguard employment opportunities for less-educated citizens.

Over-qualification can be a disqualification if the rules specifically aim to reserve posts for those with basic qualifications to ensure "adequate means of livelihood" for all (Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 711).

An illegal appointment is non-est (void) in law, and principles of sympathy or equity cannot override the lack of eligibility (Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54).

The maximum qualification limit was a reasonable policy intended to prevent highly qualified candidates from displacing those for whom the lower-level posts were reserved.

Because the respondent was a graduate on the date of his sponsorship, he was fundamentally ineligible for consideration under the specific terms of the requisition.

The omission of his graduation details in the attestation form was viewed as a lack of bona fides, indicating a conscious attempt to bypass eligibility restrictions.

His request for permission to pursue a degree he already possessed was interpreted as a deceptive tactic to project himself as meeting the eligibility criteria at the time of entry.

Any subsequent service or "sympathy" could not cure the foundational fraud or the inherent lack of eligibility.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the High Court of Madras; the order dated 30.10.2018, dismissing the respondent from service, was restored.

Misplaced sympathy cannot validate an appointment that is a nullity in the eyes of the law.