Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
ALEXDEV D.J. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE, SMT.C.B.SABEELA, SMT.APARNA G., SMT.NAMITHA BABU, SHRI.MUHAMMED HAROON THAMEEM
For the Respondents: SMT.V.A. HARITH, SMT.M.KABANI DINESH
Degrees from UGC-recognized institutions must be acknowledged for employment categorization without requiring an Equivalency Certificate.
Headnote:The judgment discusses the recognition of degrees obtained through distance learning as mandated by Ext.P2, under UGC guidelines, highlighting the petitioner's qualifications toward his employment categorization. The Court finds an error in the exclusion of the petitioner from the 'With Graduation' category due to lack of an Equivalency Certificate. The Court directs the 2nd respondent to review the petitioner's representation for proper categorization in light of the established qualifications. The judgment concludes with an order for the 2nd respondent to decide on the petitioner's request within two weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recognition of distance education degrees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. inclusion based on valid qualifications. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. direction for reconsideration of categorization. (Para 5 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is an employee of the Information Kerala Mission (IKM), an autonomous Institution under the Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala and has been in continuous service since 01.04.2004. 2. In 2011, the petitioner acquired a Bachelor's Degree in History from PRIST University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, through Open and Distance learning mode. The Government of Kerala as per Ext.P2, mandated reciprocal recognition of Degrees awarded by UGC-recognized Institutions and required Universities, Government Departments and employers in the State to recognize Degrees obtained through Open and Distance learning in accordance with UGC Regulations. The University Grants Commission as per Ext.P3 further clarified that such Degrees are equivalent to regular Degrees and that no Equivalency Certificate is required. Acting on these binding norms, the 2nd respondent initially approved the petitioner's Degree qualification and revised his post and pay as per Ext.P4.
3. However, as per Ext.P5 communication, the petitioner was directed to produce an Equivalency Certificate on the basis of opinions from certain Universities and the earlier approval was thereafter cancelled by Ext.P6, contrary to Exts.P2 and P3. While so, the 2nd respondent forwarded a proposal on 20.01.2026 to the Government for regularization of employees of the Mission, classifying Non Technical Staff into "With Graduation and "Non-Graduation" categories.
4. Despite possessing a valid Degree from a UGC-recognized University, the petitioner was wrongly included under the "Non-Graduation" category solely for want of an Equivalency Certificate. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 2nd respondent seeking correction of his categorization and inclusion under the "With Graduation" category. Non consideration of Ext.P8 by the 2nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary, contends the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 3. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent.
6. In the proposal for regularisation of services of employees like the petitioner, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner is not included in the category of “With Graduation”. The petitioner states that he is a graduate, who has obtained Degree from PRIST University, Tamil Nadu. The respondent did not include the petitioner in the category alleging that the petitioner has not produced Equivalency Certificate.
7. I find from Ext.P9 list of UGC approved Universities that the PRIST University is recognised and placed at Serial No.609 in the UGC list. If University is recognised by the UGC, I find no reason why the petitioner should also not be included in the category of “With Graduation”.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 representation in this regard before the 2nd respondent. In the facts of the case, it is highly necessary that the 2nd respondent considers Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioner requesting for correction of categorisation to “With Graduation” in Government proposal dated 20.01.2026.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
