The court affirmed that eligibility criteria for public service positions cannot be altered retrospectively after the selection process has commenced, unless explicitly permitted by existing rules.

JUDGMENT :

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

1. This original petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal. The petitioners approached the Tribunal challenging their exclusion from consideration for the post of clerk and typist on the ground that after the PSC notification, the Government decided that equivalent qualifications possessed by them would have to be excluded for the appointment to the post.

2. The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) invited notification for clerk-typist and typist-clerk for district-wise recruitment. The qualification prescribed is as follows:

(1) Pass in SSLC or its equivalent.

(2) Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting or its Equivalent.

(3) Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its Equivalent.

Those who have passed KGTE Typewriting before January 2002, must have acquired separate certificate in Computer Word Processing or its equivalent before the last date for receipt of application for the post fixed by the commission. (G.O. No. 21/2011/P&ARD dated 01.07.2011).

All the qualifications for the post must have acquired before the last date of receipt of application.

3. The notification was issued on 27/7/2019. However, the Government by an order dated 30/3/2017, in exercise of the power under Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SSR decided to recognize certificates in computer word processing issued by the Central, State Government Departments/Agencies/Societies, Universities after successfully completing course of study not less than 3 months duration as an equivalent qualification. Thus, while issuing notification, PSC also prescribed that the certificate in computer word processing issued in accordance with the Government decision is equivalent. Thereafter, the Government on 15/12/2020 based on a decision of the Expert Committee reviewed the Government's earlier decision and decided not to recognize computer word processing as a higher qualification or equivalent qualification.

4. The PSC published the ranked list on 1/2/2023 excluding candidates who possessed certificates in computer word processing and other similar qualifications in the light of the Government Order dated 15/12/2020.

5. The candidates who have been excluded approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal negated the challenge in a common order. One of the orders was challenged in O.P. (KAT) No. 130/2024. We dismissed the original petition on 30/9/2024.

6. The Government's decision not to recognize a qualification as equivalent is based on an expert committee report. The question is whether such a decision can have a retrospective effect to have an impact on the application made by the candidates who possess such qualifications. As we note, the Government had taken a conscious decision to review the earlier decision to recognize computer word processing as an equivalent qualification to the KGTE. That means, there is no existence to the earlier decision. Thus, the decision of the Government dated 15/12/2020 would have an impact on the rights of candidates who have applied pursuant to the notification issued by the PSC on 27/7/2019 for consideration.

7. The petitioners argue that after the commencement of the selection process, eligibility conditions cannot be altered. The petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and Another, 2023 SCC Online SC 640, Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 167 and Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3184.

8. This is not a situation where the selection process has been altered midway. Instead, it involves the withdrawal of eligibility itself. The Apex Court, in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), in paragraph 14, emphasizes that changes to the rules in midway are evaluated based on rules against arbitrariness.

9. It is appr