Supreme Court of India
Anoop M vs Gireeshkumar T.M on 4 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
2024 INSC 828 Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos. ………… & ……...... of 2024
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 5077-5078 of 2024)
Anoop M. and others … Appellants
Versus
Gireeshkumar T.M. and others ETC. … Respondents
with
Civil Appeal Nos. ………… & ……...... of 2024
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4709-4710 of 2024)
Civil Appeal Nos. ………… & ……...... of 2024
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4723-4724 of 2024)
Civil Appeal Nos. ………… & ……...... of 2024
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 7538-7539 of 2024)
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. With a tortuous trajectory spanning over a dozen years, this weary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
litigation craves closure. Hanging in balance is recruitment to several posts
babita pandey
Date: 2024.11.04
16:52:18 IST
Reason:
of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority.
1
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 and
(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
2
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
3
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 judgment in its favour, the KPSC surprisingly chose to
shortlist candidates in a ranked list by including persons who held DCA
qualification or other higher qualifications. Aggrieved thereby,
Gireeshkumar T.M. and six others, who held the prescribed Certificates in
Data Entry and Office Automation, filed WP (C) No. 23679 of 2023 before
the Kerala High Court. Their prayer therein was to quash the KPSC’s
ranked list, which included candidates who did not possess the prescribed
qualification, and to direct the KPSC to publish a modified ranked list,
including only such candidates who had the prescribed qualification. They
4
also sought a declaration that only candidates who had the prescribed
qualification were entitled to be appointed as LDCs in the Kerala Water
Authority. WP (C) No. 19463 of 2023 was filed on the same lines and with
similar prayers by Sajitha S. and three others. It may be noted that, by the
date of disposal of these cases, 29 candidates with DCA/higher
qualification figured as respondents in WP (C) No. 23679 of 2023, while 72
such candidates were shown as respondents in WP (C) No. 19463 of 2023.
7. Notably, the KPSC filed a counter affidavit taking a position
contrary to its earlier stand. According to it, after the Division Bench
judgment, selection to the posts of LDC was taken up and an OMR
examination was conducted. On the basis of the results thereof, a
probability list was published on 03.06.2023 of candidates who had
secured 40 marks or above. The KPSC claimed that, as a higher
qualification was not barred, it had considered such candidates also while
preparing the probability list and those with DCA/higher qualification were
also included therein. Reference was made by the KPSC to Rule 10(a)(ii)
of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.
8. A learned Judge of the Kerala High Court noted that the KPSC had
changed its stance despite carrying the matter in appeal on the earlier
occasion and held that the KPSC could not be permitted to alter its stand,
5
as permitting such reversal of position by it would mean reopening the
previously concluded judgments. The learned Judge was of the opinion
that, even if erroneous, an inter-party judgment would bind the parties
thereto. The learned Judge, accordingly, allowed the writ petitions on
30.10.2023 and directed the KPSC to recast and rework the ranked list, by
excluding candidates who were not qualified, and to publish a modified
ranked list by including therein only those candidates who possessed the
requisite qualification as prescribed in the Notification dated 16.07.2012.
9. The correctness of this common judgment dated 30.10.2023 was
canvassed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1941 and 1945 of 2023 before a Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court. Writ Appeal No. 1941 of 2023 was filed by
Rikha Susheel and four candidates, who held DCA/higher qualifications,
while Writ Appeal No. 1945 of 2023 was filed by Rikha Susheel and fifteen
such other candidates. All of them had figured as respondents in the two
writ petitions. These writ appeals were dismissed, vide common judgment
dated 30.01.2024. The Division Bench held therein that there was no error
in the reasoning of the learned Judge.
10. It is this judgment that is subjected to challenge before us. One set
of appeals was filed by the KPSC while the other three sets of appeals
were filed by candidates holding DCA/higher qualifications. One such set of
6
appeals was filed by Anoop M and twenty-nine candidates who were not
parties to the subject proceedings before the Kerala High Court.
11. We may note, at this stage, that the issue of non-impleadment of
all the affected candidates was not argued before us. However, as it has
been raised in the grounds, we deem it proper to consider the same also.
Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules states that all persons directly
affected should be made parties to the petition but where such persons are
numerous, one or more of them may, with the permission of the Court, be
impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected, but
notice of the original petition, on admission, should be given to all such
persons either by personal service or by public advertisement. As already
noted, several candidates possessing DCA/higher qualifications were either
impleaded or got impleaded in the two writ petitions. In all, 101 of them
figured as parties therein. This aspect was noted by the Division Bench and
it was held that there was sufficient representation of their collective
interest. Further, the very purpose of Rule 148 is to protect the interest of
those affected persons who may be ignorant of the litigation and would be
taken by surprise by the adverse developments therein. Given the long
history of this litigation, none of the affected candidates can be presumed
to have remained unaware of it. We, therefore, find no merit in this ground.
7
12. The qualification set out in the Notification dated 16.07.2012 for
the post of LDC was strictly in keeping with the qualification prescribed
therefor at Category No.27 in ‘Wing II – Ministerial Service’ in the Kerala
Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade) Service Rules,
2011 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 2011’). Rule 6 of the Rules of 2011 provides
that the rules relating to reservation of appointments, i.e., General Rules 14
to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (for brevity,
‘the Rules of 1958’), shall apply to the appointments by direct recruitment to
the categories of posts therein. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2011 speaks of the
applicability of Parts I, II and III of the Rules of 1958 to the ‘employees’ of
the Kerala Water Authority in matters of pay fixation, joining time, travelling
allowances, leave, pension, other retirement benefits, etc.
13. Given the phraseology of the Rules of 2011, the Rules of 1958 will
not have general and all-pervasive applicability at the stage of direct
recruitment even before a candidate is selected and appointed to any of the
posts in the categories covered by the Rules of 2011, i.e., before he/she
becomes an ‘employee’ of the Kerala Water Authority. It is relevant to note
that Rule 2 in Part II of the Rules of 1958, titled ‘Relation to the Special
Rules’, states that if any provision in the General Rules contained in Part II
thereof is repugnant to a provision in the Special Rules applicable to any
8
particular service contained in Part III thereof, the latter shall, in respect of
that service, prevail over the provision in the General Rules in Part II of the
Rules of 1958. The Rules of 2011 are Special Rules for the Kerala Water
Authority. Therefore, to the extent the Rules of 2011 make special provision
as to the qualification required for a particular post, the same would prevail
over the general rule pertaining to qualifications in Part II of the Rules of
1958. However, this would be subject to Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Rules of 1958
which, as specifically provided therein, prevails over the Special Rules also.
14. Rule 10 in Part II (General Rules) of the Rules of 1958 deals with
qualifications. It reads as follows:
‘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.
9
15. Pertinently, insofar as the post of LDC is concerned, the Rules of
2011 do not speak of a qualification ‘equivalent’ to a Certificate in Data
Entry and Office Automation from Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science
and Technology, Institute of Human Resources Development, also being
eligible. What is stated therein is that a Certificate in Data Entry and Office
Automation from a similar/equivalent institution, approved by the
Government, would be accepted as an eligible qualification. The
equivalence is, thus, not of the qualification itself but of the institution from
which the said Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation is obtained.
16. Significantly, where they so intend, the Rules of 2011 specifically
provide for ‘equivalent qualifications’ being eligible in relation to particular
posts. For instance, for the post of Legal Assistant in ‘Wing II – Ministerial
Service’ a Degree in Law from a University in Kerala or from a University
recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala is the prescribed
qualification, but its equivalent is also acceptable. Similarly, for the post of
Confidential Assistant Grade II, equivalent qualifications to those prescribed
are acceptable. So is the case with the post of Lower Division Typist, where
equivalent qualifications are explicitly shown to be acceptable. In effect, the
failure to mention an ‘equivalent qualification’ being acceptable for the post
of LDC clearly manifests the deliberate design and intent of the Rules of
10
2011 to limit the equivalence in that context only to the institution from
which the Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation is obtained and
not to enlarge the eligibility by encompassing equivalent qualifications also.
17. Given the aforestated rule position in the Rules of 2011 and the
verbatim reproduction of the same in the Notification dated 16.07.2012, it is
clear and certain that a qualification equivalent to a Certificate in Data Entry
and Office Automation from Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science and
Technology, Institute of Human Resource Development, is not acceptable
but a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation from a Government
approved similar/equivalent institution would be valid. Without the
prescription of an equivalent qualification being recognized, the first part of
Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Rules of 1958 would not be attracted, as it speaks of
applicability only in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is
provided for in the Special Rules. On the other hand, the latter part of Rule
10(a)(ii) speaks of qualifications that presuppose acquisition of the
prescribed lower qualification being treated as sufficient. It is the case of
the appellants before us that they would fall in this category as they
possess either a Diploma in Computer Applications or other higher
qualifications, such as a Diploma in Computer Engineering/Diploma in Data
Entry and Console Operation/MCA/ M.Sc. in Software Engineering, etc.
11
18. The Secretary of the KPSC filed an additional affidavit on
20.04.2024 before us, wherein he brazenly stated that the submission
before the High Court earlier was never that qualifications such as DCA
from all institutions would be rejected. This statement is incorrect on the
face of it as the KPSC had categorically stated, both in its review petition as
well as the grounds of appeal in the earlier round, that DCA qualification
would not be accepted by it as a qualification for selection to the notified
post. It had also asserted that it examined the issue in detail and decided
that applications of persons with DCA qualification could not be accepted.
19. The KPSC then filed an additional affidavit on 02.09.2024.
Therein, it was stated by its Secretary that recognition of DCA as a higher
qualification was not a one-time isolated decision but a well-considered
practice that the KPSC consistently applied in various selections over
several years. Instances were given of the KPSC accepting DCA as a
higher qualification in selections made during the years 2017, 2018, 2019,
2023 and 2024. He stated that this practice was consistently implemented
by the KPSC even before issuance of the subject ranked list. He pointed
out that this ‘equivalence’ principle had been applied to selections made for
a variety of posts, such as Data Entry Operator, Typist Grade-II, Lower
Division Clerk, Computer Operator and Confidential Assistant Grade-II.
12
According to him, while finalizing the selections for the LDC posts,
DCA/higher qualifications from institutions which were not recognized by
the Government were rejected. He furnished the list of unrecognized
institutions and said that about 120 institutions, offering DCA/PGDCA, were
recognized by the Government. He gave the names of fifteen such
institutions. He concluded by stating that 590 applications from candidates
with DCA/higher qualifications from unrecognized institutions had been
rejected, on the one hand, but more than 175 applications from candidates
with DCA/higher qualifications from recognized institutions had been
accepted. Reference was made to internal correspondence dated
13.06.2017 in relation to the selections for the post of Data Entry Operator
in District Cooperative Banks, wherein the higher qualifications, which were
to be accepted in lieu of a Certificate in Data Entry, were furnished.
Reference was also made to File No. DR V(1)1223/13/GW, pertaining to
the above mentioned post of Data Entry Operator, adverting to the
acceptability of 38 qualifications and 8 experience certificates.
20. Notwithstanding this change in its approach, there is no getting
over the fact that in the earlier round of this litigation, the KPSC was
uncompromising in its refusal to consider DCA as an eligible qualification
for appointment to the post of LDC in the Kerala Water Authority. So much
13
so that it felt aggrieved by the direction of a learned Judge to the contrary
and went to the extent of filing a review petition and also a writ appeal
thereafter. The Memorandum of Grounds filed by the KPSC in the said writ
appeal clearly demonstrated its adamant stand that DCA was not a
qualification to be considered eligible for appointment to the subject post. It
is apparent that the KPSC did a volte-face thereafter, be it for whatever
reason, and now seeks to adopt a stand that DCA should be treated as a
higher qualification which presupposes the lesser qualification of the
prescribed Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation.
21. However, no material has been placed before us to demonstrate
that the KPSC undertook 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. The qualification prescribed, being a
Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation from the named Institute or
from a similar/equivalent government approved institution, it was necessary
for the KPSC to ascertain the number of hours of actual data entry and
office automation that is put in by a candidate who possesses the so-called
higher qualification to decide whether he/she can be treated as superior to
a candidate with the prescribed qualification. Without undertaking this
14
exercise, the KPSC cannot straightaway assume that, merely because the
higher qualification is a Degree/Diploma in a computer-related subject, a
candidate possessing the same would have more experience and expertise
in data entry and office automation than a candidate with the prescribed
Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation.
22. Useful reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of
this Court in Ajith K and others vs. Aneesh K.S. and others 1. That was
also a case from the State of Kerala and involved the post of Junior Health
Inspector Grade-II in Municipal Common Service. Minimum qualifications
were prescribed for the post in the alternative. While so, candidates
possessing a Diploma in Health Inspector Course, a two-year course which
was not included in the prescribed qualifications, also aspired for selection.
In this context, this Court considered whether the said Diploma could be
treated as a higher qualification which presupposed acquisition of the
prescribed lower qualification. Relevantly, 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,
ultimately leading to this Court rejecting such a claim. Similar is the position
presently as the KPSC, except for furnishing data of the institutions offering
DCA that were treated as eligible due to Government recognition, did not
1
(2019) 17 SCC 147
15
undertake an independent assessment of the higher qualifications to
determine whether candidates who possessed those qualifications would
have put in equivalent or more number of hours in data entry and office
automation than a candidate who underwent a three months course to
obtain the prescribed Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation.
23. The decision of this Court in Jyoti K.K. and others vs. Kerala
Public Service Commission2 is distinguishable on facts, as that was a
case where the higher qualification clearly presupposed acquisition of the
lesser qualification. The prescribed qualification for the post in question in
that case was a Diploma/Certificate in Electrical Engineering, whereas the
higher qualifications which were under consideration were B.Tech/B.E
Degrees in Electrical Engineering. The same cannot be said to be the case
presently, as every computer-related Degree/Diploma course cannot be
assumed to impart similar experience or expertise in data entry and office
automation as the prescribed Certificate course.
24. In Sheo Shyam vs. State of U.P. 3, this Court considered a
recruitment process undertaken by the Union Public Service Commission.
There was lack of consensus between the Commission and the State
Government and the career of eleven candidates stood at risk owing to
2
(2010) 15 SCC 596
3
(2005) 10 SCC 314
16
such inconsistent and varying stands adopted by the State Government
and the Commission at different stages for different purposes. In this
context, this Court observed that, though there cannot be any estoppel in
law, yet a statutory body like the Commission could not blow hot and cold in
the same breath, as there has to be consistency in its view. To rule out
unfortunate situations like the one in that case recurring again, this Court
cautioned the State Government and the Commission to be more vigilant
and constructive in their approach. This Court observed that, when dealing
with careers of a large number of candidates, their stands have to be
consistent and not varied to avoid giving room for unsavoury suspicions
and to ensure that the system works more transparently.
25. 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. The KPSC, as already noted supra, was steadfast in
its stand in the earlier round that DCA was not a qualification to be
considered eligible for appointment to the subject post of LDC in the Kerala
Water Authority. Thereafter, the change in its stance, without any
foundational inquiry to determine the superiority of the so-called higher
qualifications over the prescribed qualification, leaves this Court with no
17
doubt that it was a purely whimsical and arbitrary exercise of discretion on
its part without actual application of mind as per required parameters.
26. Recently, in Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of
Kerala and others4, a Constitution Bench held thus:
‘In a constitutional system rooted in the rule of law, the discretion
available with public authorities is confined within clearly defined
limits. The primary principle underpinning the concept of rule of
law is consistency and predictability in decision-making. A decision
of a public authority taken without any basis in principle or rule is
unpredictable and is, therefore, arbitrary and antithetical to the rule
of law. [S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, 1967 SCC OnLine SC
6] The rule of law promotes fairness by stabilising the expectations
of citizens from public authorities. This was also considered in a
recent decision of this Court in SEBI v. Sunil Krishna
Khaitan [SEBI v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan, (2023) 2 SCC 643],
wherein it was observed that regularity and predictability are
hallmarks of good regulation and governance. [SEBI v. Sunil
Krishna Khaitan, (2023) 2 SCC 643] This Court held that certainty
and consistency are important facets of fairness in action and
non-arbitrariness: (Sunil Krishna Khaitan case, SCC pp 678-679,
para 59)
“59….. Any good regulatory system must promote and adhere to
principle of certainty and consistency, providing assurance to the
individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of
his daily affairs. ……. This does not mean that the regulator/
authorities cannot deviate from the past practice, albeit any such
deviation or change must be predicated on greater public interest
or harm. This is the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of4
(2024) 3 SCC 79918
India which requires fairness in action by the State, and non-
arbitrariness in essence and substance. Therefore, to examine the
question of inconsistency, the analysis is to ascertain the need
and functional value of the change, as consistency is a matter of
operational effectiveness.” ’
Earlier, in State of Bihar and others vs. Shyama Nandan
Mishra5, this Court observed 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.
27. 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. 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
can only hope that the Kerala Public Service Commission learns from this
experience and desists, at least in future, from trifling with the lives, hopes
and aspirations of candidates who seek public employment.
28. On the above analysis, we hold that no error was committed by the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in confirming the view taken by the
5
2022 SCC OnLine SC 554
19
learned Judge, non-suiting candidates with DCA/higher qualifications who
aspired for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water
Authority.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
…………………………………………..,J
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
.………………………..,J
(SANJAY KUMAR)
November 4, 2024;
New Delhi.
20