1. Recruitment for Lower Division Clerk — Dispute over eligibility of candidates holding higher computer qualifications versus the prescribed certificate in data entry and office automation. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 983
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Anoop M. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12173-12174 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 5077-5078 of 2024) with Civil Appeal Nos. 12177-12178 & of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4709-4710 of 2024) Civil Appeal Nos. 12175-12176 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4723-4724 of 2024) Civil Appeal Nos. 12179-12180 & of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 7538-7539 of 2024)
Decided On : 04-11-2024
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. M.R.Ramya, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mr. P.B.Sashaankh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Roy Abraham, Adv. Ms. Reena Roy, Adv. Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy, Adv. Mr. Yaduinder Lal, Adv. Ms. Rajni Ohri Lal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kumar, Adv. Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. Ms. Thulasi K Raj, Adv. Ms. Aprana Menon, Adv. Ms. Aparna Menon, Adv. Ms. Chinnu Maria Antony, Adv. Mr. Shaji P Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. P Nandakumar, Adv. Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.t., AOR Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Abreeda Banu, Adv. Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Ajith Anto Perumbully, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Ms. M.B.Ramya, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mr. P.B.Sashaankh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. M.R.Ramya, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mr. P.B.Sashaankh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Roy Abraham, Adv. Ms. Reena Roy, Adv. Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy, Adv. Mr. Yaduinder Lal, Adv. Ms. Rajni Ohri Lal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kumar, Adv. Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. Ms. Thulasi K Raj, Adv. Ms. Aprana Menon, Adv. Ms. Aparna Menon, Adv. Ms. Chinnu Maria Antony, Adv. Mr. Shaji P Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. P Nandakumar, Adv. Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.t., AOR Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Abreeda Banu, Adv. Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Ajith Anto Perumbully, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Ms. M.B.Ramya, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mr. P.B.Sashaankh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Selection – A State instrumentality seized of 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.
Headnote:
Service Law – Selection – Post of LDC – A State instrumentality seized of 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 Court, contrary to what it had stated in its earlier sworn affidavits – No error was committed by Division Bench of Kerala High Court in confirming view taken by Judge, non-suiting candidates with DCA/higher qualifications who aspired for selection to post of Lower Division Clerk in Kerala Water Authority – Failure to mention an ‘equivalent qualification’ being acceptable for post of LDC clearly manifests deliberate design and intent of Rules of 2011 to limit equivalence in that context only to institution from which Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation is obtained and not to enlarge eligibility by encompassing equivalent qualifications also – Qualification prescribed, being a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation from named Institute or from a similar/equivalent government approved institution, it was necessary for KPSC to ascertain number of hours of actual data entry and office automation that is put in by a candidate who possesses so-called higher qualification to decide whether he/she can be treated as superior to a candidate with prescribed qualification – Appeals dismissed. [Kerala Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade) Service Rules, 2011] (Paras 16, 21, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Hanging in balance is recruitment to several posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority. A notification was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) in this regard on 16.07.2012 for filling up 102 existing vacancies and 43 anticipated vacancies in the said post. 1192 applications were received in response thereto.
Findings of Court:
No error was committed by Division Bench of Kerala High Court in confirming view taken by the Judge, non-suiting candidates with DCA/higher qualifications who aspired for selection to post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether candidates with higher computer qualifications are eligible for appointment when the notification specifies a certificate from a particular institution or its equivalent. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 )
3. Special rules prevail over general rules; higher qualifications must be proven to presuppose the prescribed lower qualification through curriculum analysis to ensure consistency and non-arbitrariness. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 )
4. A higher qualification is sufficient only if it presupposes the acquisition of the prescribed lower qualification, and public authorities must maintain consistency in decision-making. (Para 17 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 26 )
5. Appeals dismissed; candidates with higher qualifications excluded from the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk. (Para 28 )
6. When do Special Rules prevail over General Rules regarding recruitment qualifications?
Special Rules prevail over General Rules if they provide specific qualifications for a post, unless a general rule specifically provides that it prevails over Special Rules. (Para 13 )
7. When can a higher qualification be treated as sufficient for a post requiring a lower qualification?
A higher qualification is sufficient if it presupposes the acquisition of the prescribed lower qualification. This requires an independent assessment of the curriculum to ensure the higher qualification imparts equivalent or greater expertise in the specific skills required. (Para 14 , 17 , 21 , 22 )
8. Can a statutory body change its legal stand during a recruitment process?
No. Public authorities must ensure consistency and predictability in decision-making. A sudden reversal of position without a principled basis or foundational inquiry is arbitrary and antithetical to the rule of law. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. With a tortuous trajectory spanning over a dozen years, this weary litigation craves closure. Hanging in balance is recruitment to several posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority.
A notification was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) in this regard on 16.07.2012 for filling up 102 existing vacancies and 43 anticipated vacancies in the said post. 1192 applications were received in response thereto. The qualifications prescribed in the notification were:
(i) Degree in any discipline.
(ii) Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation of minimum 3 months (120 hours) duration awarded by Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science and Technology (LBS), Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD), or from similar/equivalent institution approved by the Government.
3. While so, one Shebin A.S. who held a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA), filed WP (C) No. 24279 of 2012 before the High Court of Kerala contending that the qualifications, as prescribed, would eliminate candidates who held higher qualifications as it restricted the zone of consideration to certificate holders only. By judgment dated 01.08.2014, a learned Judge agreed with him and allowed the writ petition. The learned Judge opined that the notification should have been more transparent with regard to the qualifications, specifying whether equivalent/higher qualifications could also be accepted. The KPSC was accordingly directed to issue a revised notification, keeping this aspect in mind.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the KPSC filed Review Petition No. 884 of 2014 pointing out that there was no stipulation in the notification or in the Special Rules applicable to the post of LDC that a higher/equivalent qualification is also acceptable. The KPSC further stated that it had examined the issue in detail and decided that applications of persons with DCA qualification could not be accepted for the said post. It specifically averred that 590 applications of persons having DCA qualification had been received but were not treated as valid. Asserting that the judgment, if complied with, would go against the Rules as DCA was not a notified qualification, the KPSC sought review of the direction to issue a revised notification. However, the Review Petition was dismissed on 24.02.2015.
5. The KPSC, thereupon, filed Writ Appeal No. 1501 of 2015. It asserted that, as an equivalent or higher qualification was not prescribed under the Rules, it was not accepting DCA qualification for the post of LDC. It further asserted that, at no point of time had it taken any decision to accept applications of candidates with DCA qualification as the qualification prescribed and notified for the post did not indicate that persons with DCA qualification would also be permitted to participate in the selection process. Accepting the stand of the KPSC, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowed its writ appeal, vide judgment dated 13.06.2022. The Division Bench took note of the KPSC’s contention that it had never notified any change in the qualifications and that it had already decided that DCA was not an equivalent qualification for the post in question as the equivalence mentioned in the notification was only with respect to the institution. The Division Bench, therefore, opined that, as no change had been made by the KPSC with regard to the qualification after issuance of the notification and, as a matter of fact, the KPSC had decided that DCA was not an equivalent qualification for the post in question, there was no warrant for allowing the writ petition and issuing a direction to revise the notification. The Division Bench noted that even if a person with higher qualification had applied, the same would have been rejected during the scrutiny before shortlisting of candidates for interviews. The Division Bench accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
6. Despite this ju
