Supreme Court Upholds Kerala PSC’s Original Qualification Criteria for Lower Division Clerk Posts: Anoop M. vs. Gireeshkumar T.M. (2024)

Date of the Judgment: November 4, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 828
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J.

Can a Public Service Commission change its stance on qualification requirements for a job after initially rejecting certain qualifications? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of Lower Division Clerks in the Kerala Water Authority. The core issue revolved around whether candidates holding a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) or other higher qualifications could be considered eligible when the specific requirement was a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar, delivered the judgment. Justice Sanjay Kumar authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a notification on July 16, 2012, for the recruitment of Lower Division Clerks (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority. The notification specified that candidates must possess a degree in any discipline and a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation of at least 3 months (120 hours) duration from the Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science and Technology (LBS), Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD), or a similar/equivalent institution approved by the Government.

Shebin A.S., a candidate holding a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, arguing that the prescribed qualifications were restrictive and eliminated candidates with higher qualifications.

Initially, the High Court agreed with Shebin, directing the KPSC to issue a revised notification that would clarify whether equivalent or higher qualifications could be accepted. However, the KPSC filed a review petition, asserting that the rules did not allow for the acceptance of DCA as an equivalent qualification. The KPSC stated that it had received 590 applications from candidates with DCA qualifications, which were not treated as valid. The review petition was dismissed.

The KPSC then filed a writ appeal. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court accepted the KPSC’s argument, stating that the KPSC had not notified any changes in qualifications and that DCA was not an equivalent qualification for the post. The Division Bench set aside the earlier judgment and dismissed the writ petition.

Despite this favorable judgment, the KPSC surprisingly included candidates with DCA or other higher qualifications in the ranked list. Aggrieved by this, Gireeshkumar T.M. and others, who held the prescribed certificates, filed writ petitions seeking to quash the ranked list and direct the KPSC to publish a modified list including only candidates with the prescribed qualification.

The KPSC, in a counter-affidavit, changed its stance, claiming that higher qualifications were not barred and that it had considered such candidates while preparing the probability list. The KPSC referred to Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.

The High Court held that the KPSC could not change its stance and directed it to recast the ranked list, excluding candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualification. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The initial writ petition (WP (C) No. 24279 of 2012) was filed by Shebin A.S. before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the restrictive qualification criteria in the KPSC notification. The single judge allowed the writ petition, directing the KPSC to revise the notification to clarify whether equivalent or higher qualifications could be accepted.

The KPSC filed a review petition (Review Petition No. 884 of 2014), which was dismissed. Subsequently, the KPSC filed a writ appeal (Writ Appeal No. 1501 of 2015), which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench held that the KPSC had not notified any changes in qualifications and that DCA was not an equivalent qualification.

After the KPSC included candidates with DCA and other higher qualifications in the ranked list, Gireeshkumar T.M. and others filed WP (C) No. 23679 of 2023 and Sajitha S. and others filed WP (C) No. 19463 of 2023. The single judge allowed these writ petitions, directing the KPSC to exclude candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualification.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals (Writ Appeal Nos. 1941 and 1945 of 2023) filed against the single judge’s order.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules of 1958’) and the Kerala Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade) Service Rules, 2011 (‘the Rules of 2011’).

Rule 6 of the Rules of 2011 states that the rules relating to reservation of appointments, i.e., General Rules 14 to 17 of the Rules of 1958, shall apply to the direct recruitment to the posts in the Rules of 2011. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2011 deals with the applicability of Parts I, II, and III of the Rules of 1958 to the employees of the Kerala Water Authority.

Rule 2 in Part II of the Rules of 1958 states that if any provision in the General Rules in Part II is repugnant to a provision in the Special Rules in Part III, the latter shall prevail. The Rules of 2011 are Special Rules for the Kerala Water Authority.

Rule 10 of the Rules of 1958, titled “Qualifications,” states:

‘10. Qualifications.- (a) (i) The educational or other qualifications, if any, required for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules applicable to the service in which that post is included or as specified in the executive orders of Government in cases where Special Rules have not been issued for the post/service.

(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission as per rule 13 (b) (i) of the said rules in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the rules and such of those qualifications which pre-suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shall also be sufficient for the post.’

The Rules of 2011 for the post of LDC do not specify that an equivalent qualification to a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation is also acceptable. The rules only state that a certificate from a similar/equivalent institution approved by the Government is acceptable.

Arguments

The appellants, candidates with DCA and other higher qualifications, argued that their qualifications should be considered equivalent to or higher than the prescribed Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation. They relied on Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Rules of 1958, which states that qualifications that presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient. They contended that their higher qualifications presuppose the acquisition of the skills and knowledge required for the prescribed certificate.

The KPSC initially argued that DCA was not an equivalent qualification and that it had never notified any change in the qualifications. However, the KPSC later changed its stance, claiming that higher qualifications were not barred and that it had considered such candidates while preparing the probability list. The KPSC also argued that it had consistently applied the principle of accepting DCA as a higher qualification in various selections over several years.

The respondents, candidates with the prescribed certificates, argued that the KPSC could not change its stance and that the rules clearly specified the required qualification. They contended that the KPSC’s decision to include candidates with higher qualifications in the ranked list was arbitrary and violated the rules.

The High Court held that the KPSC could not change its stance and that the rules clearly specified the required qualification. The High Court also observed that the KPSC did not undertake any exercise to study the curriculum of each of the courses in question to assess and decide whether any of the so-called ‘higher qualifications’ can be said to presuppose acquisition of the lesser qualification prescribed for the post.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether candidates with qualifications such as a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) or other higher qualifications can be considered eligible for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) when the prescribed qualification is a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the Kerala High Court. The Court held that the KPSC was not justified in including candidates with DCA or other higher qualifications in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority.

The Court emphasized that the Rules of 2011 specifically prescribed a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation and did not provide for the acceptance of equivalent qualifications. The Court also noted that the KPSC did not undertake any exercise to assess whether the higher qualifications presupposed the acquisition of the lesser qualification.

The Court criticized the KPSC for its vacillating and dithering stance, noting that it had initially rejected DCA as an equivalent qualification but later changed its position without any foundational inquiry. The Court stated that the KPSC’s actions were a whimsical and arbitrary exercise of discretion.

The Court’s view of authorities:

✓ Ajith K and others vs. Aneesh K.S. and others [(2019) 17 SCC 147]*: This case was followed to highlight that the KPSC did not undertake any exercise to come to a sustainable finding that acquisition of the Diploma would presuppose acquisition of the prescribed lesser qualification.

✓ Jyoti K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596]*: This case was distinguished on facts, noting that in that case, the higher qualification clearly presupposed acquisition of the lesser qualification, which was not the case here.

✓ Sheo Shyam vs. State of U.P. [(2005) 10 SCC 314]*: This case was followed to emphasize that a statutory body like the Commission could not blow hot and cold in the same breath and that there has to be consistency in its view.

✓ Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and others [(2024) 3 SCC 799]*: This case was followed to highlight the principle of consistency and predictability in decision-making by public authorities.

✓ State of Bihar and others vs. Shyama Nandan Mishra [2022 SCC OnLine SC 554]*: This case was followed to emphasize that the State cannot be allowed to change course and belie legitimate expectation as regularity, predictability, certainty and fairness are necessary concomitants of governmental action.

The Court considered Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 but held that it was not applicable in this case because the special rules did not provide for acceptance of equivalent qualifications.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure consistency, transparency, and adherence to the prescribed rules in the recruitment process. The Court was critical of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for its inconsistent stances and for not conducting a proper assessment of whether higher qualifications presupposed the acquisition of the prescribed lower qualification. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a high standard of probity and transparency in public service selections.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the legal provisions and the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that the Rules of 2011 did not provide for the acceptance of equivalent qualifications for the post of LDC and that the KPSC did not undertake any exercise to assess whether the higher qualifications presupposed the acquisition of the lesser qualification. The Court also criticized the KPSC for its inconsistent stance and for not maintaining a high standard of probity and transparency.

The Court did not explicitly consider alternative interpretations of the rules. However, it rejected the KPSC’s later stance that higher qualifications should be considered, emphasizing that the rules did not provide for such an interpretation and that the KPSC had not conducted any assessment to determine if the higher qualifications presupposed the acquisition of the lesser qualification.

The Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the rules and a critical assessment of the KPSC’s actions. The Court emphasized the need for consistency, transparency, and adherence to the prescribed rules in the recruitment process.

The Court provided the following reasons for its decision:

• The Rules of 2011 specifically prescribe a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation for the post of LDC.
• The Rules of 2011 do not provide for the acceptance of equivalent qualifications for the post of LDC.
• The KPSC did not undertake any exercise to assess whether the higher qualifications presupposed the acquisition of the lesser qualification.
• The KPSC’s change in stance was arbitrary and without any foundational inquiry.
• The KPSC’s actions were inconsistent and lacked transparency.

The Court did not have any dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that public authorities must adhere to the prescribed rules and maintain consistency in their actions. The decision also emphasizes the importance of transparency and probity in public service selections. The decision could have implications for future cases involving similar issues of qualification requirements and the acceptance of equivalent qualifications.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. However, it reaffirmed the importance of consistency, transparency, and adherence to the prescribed rules in public service selections.

The Court analyzed arguments for and against the acceptance of equivalent qualifications, ultimately rejecting the KPSC’s later stance that higher qualifications should be considered. The Court emphasized that the rules did not provide for such an interpretation and that the KPSC had not conducted any assessment to determine if the higher qualifications presupposed the acquisition of the lesser qualification.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Presently also, it is manifest that it is the KPSC, with its vacillating and dithering stance, that is largely responsible for this long-pending litigation, impacting the lives, hopes and aspirations of nearly twelve hundred candidates.”

“A State instrumentality seized of the solemn responsibility of making selections to public services must maintain a high standard of probity and transparency and is not expected to remain nebulous as to its norms or resort to falsehoods before the Court, contrary to what it had stated in its earlier sworn affidavits.”

“We, therefore, have no hesitation in placing the blame for this entire imbroglio on the KPSC as it laid the genesis for this litigation owing to its changing stances at different points of time.”

Key Takeaways

• Public Service Commissions must adhere strictly to the prescribed qualification criteria for recruitment.
• Public Service Commissions cannot change their stance on qualification requirements without a valid reason and proper assessment.
• Higher qualifications are not automatically considered equivalent to or higher than the prescribed qualifications unless specifically provided for in the rules.
• Public Service Commissions must maintain consistency, transparency, and probity in their actions.
• This judgment may impact future recruitment processes where equivalent qualifications are in question and emphasizes the need for a proper assessment of higher qualifications.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than dismissing the appeals. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to exclude candidates with DCA or other higher qualifications from the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Public Service Commissions must adhere strictly to the prescribed qualification criteria for recruitment and cannot change their stance on qualification requirements without a valid reason and proper assessment. Higher qualifications are not automatically considered equivalent to or higher than the prescribed qualifications unless specifically provided for in the rules. This case reinforces the importance of consistency, transparency, and probity in public service selections. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Kerala High Court’s decision toexclude candidates with Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) or other higher qualifications from the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority. The Court emphasized that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) must adhere strictly to the prescribed qualification criteria and cannot change its stance without a valid reason and proper assessment. The judgment reinforces the importance of consistency, transparency, and probity in public service selections.