Kerala Public Service Commission Should Desist From Trifling With The Lives, Hopes & Aspirations Of Candidates Who Seek Public Employment: Supreme Court

The Court upheld the Kerala High Court's decision to exclude candidates with a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) or other higher qualifications from eligibility for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority (Authority).

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “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.”

Senior Advocate V. Giri represented the appellants, while Senior Advocate Shaji P Chaly appeared for the respondents.

The case, spanning “over a dozen years,” concerned a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for the post of LDC. This notification prescribed the qualification as a ‘Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation’ from specified institutions.

Candidates with DCA or higher qualifications challenged this specification in the High Court contending that their qualifications should be considered equivalent. The High Court stated that only candidates with the prescribed qualification were eligible, observing that the equivalency mentioned in the rules applied only to recognised institutions, not to alternative qualifications.

Despite the same, the KPSC included candidates with DCA or higher qualifications in the ranked list, prompting candidates holding the specific certification in Data Entry and Office Automation to file writ petitions. They requested the KPSC publish a list including only such candidates who had the prescribed qualification. The High Court allowed these petitions directing the KPSC to rework the list to exclude candidates without the specific qualification. This decision was affirmed by the Division Bench.

The Supreme Court noted the KPSC’s changing stance over the years. The Court observed that, although the KPSC initially maintained that DCA was not an eligible qualification for the LDC post, it later altered this position without any foundational inquiry to assess if these higher qualifications provided the specific expertise of the required Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation. The Court held that merely possessing a computer-related diploma or degree did not presuppose the exact experience and expertise necessary, and it would have required examining the hours of training in data entry and office automation in each qualification to determine eligibility.

The Bench found the KPSC’s change in stance to be “whimsical and arbitrary,” noting that such behavior could impact the “lives, hopes, and aspirations” of candidates. The Court also pointed out that Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, which allowed for equivalent qualifications, did not apply in the case, as equivalency related only to the recognition of institutions and not alternate certifications.

Consequently, the Court observed, “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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

Cause Title: Anoop M. & Ors. v. Gireeshkumar T.M. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 828)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates V. Giri; AOR Vipin Nair and Himinder Lal; Advocates M.R. Ramya, Mohd Aman Alam, P.B.Sashaankh, Aditya Narendranath, Roy Abraham, Reena Roy, Adithya Koshy Roy, Yaduinder Lal, Rajni Ohri Lal and Shrey Kumar

Respondents: Senior Advocate Shaji P Chaly; AOR Mohammed Sadique T.A., Abdulla Naseeh V.t., Himinder Lal, Nishe Rajen Shonker and Vipin Nair; Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K Raj, Aprana Menon, Aparna Menon, Chinnu Maria Antony, P Nandakumar, Shivam Sharma, Abreeda Banu, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Ajith Anto Perumbully, M.B.Ramya, Mohd Aman Alam, P.B.Sashaankh and Aditya Narendranath

Click here to read/download the Judgment