Can Higher Qualification Be Ground for Dismissal? SC to Review Telangana HC Order Upholding Terminated Staffer

New Delhi: Can a government employee be terminated from service for suppressing information about possessing higher qualifications than the prescribed degree for the job?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a Telangana High Court verdict which upheld the Centre's decision to terminate the service of an employee from the Scheduled Tribe community who had allegedly suppressed the information of being 'intermediate pass' than the prescribed Class 19 pass criteria required for the job of 'work assistant'.

A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Shree Chandershekar issued notice to the Centre on a plea of Pawar Subhash, who has challenged the order of the High Court dated November 27, 2025, PTI reported.

“This judgment is prima facie wrong. We will examine the judgment. There is already a Supreme Court judgment which says that higher qualification cannot be a ground for disqualification,” the bench told counsel appearing for Subhash.

The High Court in its verdict had noted that the petitioner had applied for the post of work assistant for which the prescribed qualification was Class 10 pass and did not disclose that he had cleared his intermediate exam.

It had said that Subhash passed Class 10 in 2003 and Intermediate in 2006 and applied for the post on July 26, 2010.

The High Court said based on the declaration made by Subhash, he was shortlisted for the job. On May 25, 2013, he submitted a declaration disclosing that he had passed the Intermediate examination.

It said treating this as “willful suppression” of material information at the stage of application and during subsequent verification process, the union government terminated his services on May 27, 2013.

Subhash challenged the termination order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which set aside the order dated May 27, 2013 and remanded the matter, directing the Centre to reconsider the aspect of keeping him in public employment, for which he was otherwise qualified, and to pass a speaking order.

The government passed a detailed speaking order dated April 30, 2022, that the petitioner was unsuitable for public employment and reiterated that he had deliberately repeatedly suppressed his higher qualification in the application form, undertaking and declaration.

The government concluded that the act of suppression clearly exhibited a lack of integrity of the petitioner which makes him unsuitable for public employment and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The order of the government was again challenged before the tribunal, but this time the decision was upheld on the ground that petitioner's suppression was intentional and deliberate.

Aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal, Subhash moved the High Court and took the ground that the suppression, if any, was not of a 'material fact'.

He relied on two apex court decisions that the possession of a higher qualification was not a ground for disqualification.

His counsel contended before the High Court that the termination of his services on account of the petitioner possessing the Intermediate qualification is shockingly disproportionate and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

Subhash's counsel submitted that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community and hailed from a remote area and did not possess the requisite awareness regarding procedural formalities and the subsequent disclosure by him in May, 2013 of having passed intermediate was voluntary and demonstrated his bona fides.

The High Court did not agree with the submissions and said due to a large volume of applications for the post, the government exercised the right to restrict the number of candidates on the basis of higher qualification and screened out approximately 45 per cent (about 14,000) candidates who possessed qualification above tenth pass.

It said the petitioner's Intermediate qualification was not irrelevant and was a specific criteria that would have and in the case of 45 per cent of applications, did lead to the application being screened out at the initial stage itself.

“Further, by declaring that the petitioner only possessed SSC (tenth pass) qualification, the petitioner circumvented the screening process. The petitioner secured a place in the written examination and the subsequent process, which he might not have secured in the event of his having made a truthful declaration of possessing Intermediate qualification,” it had said.

It said in matters of public employment, the process must be fair, transparent and equitable to all candidates and the candidate who gains access through suppression or misrepresentation taints the entire process.