Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan states if the initial appointment is illegal, the candidate cannot seek equitable relief under Article 142 of Indian Constitution,1950 (COI) to retain the post. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Jomon KK v. Shajimon P and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Jomon KK v. Shajimon P and others Case? 

• The appellant, Jomon K.K., applied for the post of "Boat Lascar" in the Kerala State Water Transport Department in response to an advertisement dated 17th October 2012. 
• The advertisement stipulated possession of a current Lascar's Licence as an essential qualification for the post. 
• The appellant possessed a Syrang's Licence, which is considered superior to a Lascar's Licence, but did not possess a current Lascar's Licence at the time of application. 
• Based on a letter from the Director of Ports dated 9th October 2012, which stated that Syrang's Licence holders were proficient in Lascar work and eligible for the job, the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) considered the appellant's application. 
• The appellant performed well in the selection process and was ranked first in the "Ranked List" effective from 22nd February 2017, and was subsequently appointed as "Boat Lascar" on 28th July 2017. 
• During this period, unsuccessful candidates filed applications before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging the inclusion of candidates without current Lascar's Licence in the selection process. 
• The Tribunal, without impleading the appellant as a party to the proceedings, directed KPSC to recast the "Ranked List" and cancel advice to appoint ineligible candidates. 
• Consequently, KPSC cancelled the advice for appointment of the appellant, and the Director cancelled his appointment as "Boat Lascar" on 27th October 2018. 
• The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court of Kerala, which dismissed his writ petitions, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that appointment made contrary to statutory requirements is void, and the essential qualification prescribed in the Special Rules and advertisement was possession of a current Lascar's Licence, which the appellant did not possess. 
• The Court noted that merely because the post of Lascar is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Syrang does not automatically make a holder of Syrang's Licence qualified for the job of Lascar. 
• The Court held that allowing higher qualified candidates (with Syrang's Licence) to compete for posts meant for those with lesser qualifications (Lascar's Licence) would disadvantage candidates who possess only the basic qualification. 
• The Court opined that each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts, and there can be no universally accepted rule that a higher qualified candidate is always to be preferred over a candidate who matches the essential qualification. 
• The Court observed that equality of opportunity in matters of public employment is a sine qua non for a fair selection process, which was absent in this case as other potential candidates with Syrang's Licence might not have applied due to lack of awareness. 
• The Court stated that if an appointment is illegal, it is non-est in the eye of law, rendering the appointment a nullity, and principles of equity have no role to play in such cases. 
• The Court concluded that since the appellant gained entry through an invalid process, it was not a fit case for exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) to overlook the illegality. 

What is Article 142 of Indian Constitution? 

• Article 142 of the COI confers special powers on the Supreme Court to ensure "complete justice" in cases pending before it. 
• Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or make any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, with such orders being enforceable throughout India. 
• Article 142(2) grants the Supreme Court power across the entire territory of India to secure attendance of persons, discovery or production of documents, and investigation or punishment of contempt of itself. 
• The Supreme Court's power under Article 142 has been interpreted as plenary and supplementary to powers specifically conferred by various statutes, though not limited by those statutes. 
• In Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1963), the Supreme Court held that despite the wide powers under Article 142, it cannot make orders plainly inconsistent with constitutional provisions. 
• The Union Carbide v. Union of India case (1991) established that limitations contained in ordinary laws cannot ipso facto restrict the exercise of powers under Article 142. 
• In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Court clarified that powers under Article 142 are inherent, complementary to statutory powers, and are of very wide amplitude serving as a residual source of power. 
• Recent jurisprudence has established that while exercising powers under Article 142, the Court can depart from procedural and substantive laws based on public policy considerations but cannot ignore substantive rights of litigants or principles of natural justice. 
• The Court has applied Article 142 in various contexts including dissolution of marriages on grounds of irretrievable breakdown even when opposed by one spouse, quashing criminal proceedings pursuant to settlements, and bypassing procedural requirements when justice demands.