Supreme Court: In a civil appeal concerning the recruitment to several posts of Lower Division Clerk (‘LDC’) in the Kerala Water Authority, the division bench of PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ. held that no error was committed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in confirming the view taken by the Single Judge by non-suiting candidates with DCA/higher qualifications who aspired for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority.
Background:
A notification was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’) in 2012 for filling up 102 existing vacancies and 43 anticipated vacancies in the posts of LDC in the Kerala Water Authority.
The qualifications prescribed in the notification were:
-
Degree in any discipline and
-
Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation of minimum 3 months 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.
One of the aspirants holding a Diploma in Computer Applications (‘DCA’), filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court contending that the qualifications, as prescribed, would eliminate candidates who held higher qualifications, as it restricted the zone of consideration to certificate holders only.
The High Court opined that the notification should have been more transparent regarding 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. Aggrieved thereby, the KPSC filed a review petition, which was dismissed. Thereafter, KPSC filed a writ appeal, asserting that as an equivalent or higher qualification was not prescribed under the Rules, it was not accepting DCA qualification for the post of LDC. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed this writ appeal, vide judgment dated 13-06-2022. 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 some aspirants who held the prescribed Certificates in Data Entry and Office Automation, filed writ petition before the High Court, 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. 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 as permitting such reversal of position by it would mean reopening the previously concluded judgments. The Judge directed KPSC to recast and rework the ranked list, by excluding candidates who were not qualified, and to publish a modified ranked list.
The correctness of this judgment was canvassed in writ appeal. These writ appeals were dismissed, vide common judgment dated 30-01-2024. The Division Bench via the impugned judgment held that there was no error in the reasoning of the single Judge.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the qualifications prescribed for the post of LDC in the Notification dated 16-07-2012 were in strict adherence to the provisions of Category No. 27 in “Wing II — Ministerial Service” under the Kerala Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial, and Last Grade) Service Rules, 2011 (‘Rules of 2011’).
The Court further observed that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2011 explicitly incorporates the General Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (‘Rules of 1958’), which govern the reservation of appointments by direct recruitment.
The Court mentioned that 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.
Further, the Bench noted that Rule 2 of the Rules of 1958, 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 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, subject to Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Rules of 1958 which, as specifically provided therein, prevails over the Special Rules also.
The Court said that the Rules of 2011 do not explicitly recognize a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation from the Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science and Technology, Institute of Human Resources Development, as an eligible qualification. The Court pointed out that the Rules of 2011 specify that only a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation from an institution similar to or equivalent to those recognized by the Government would be considered an acceptable qualification. Therefore, the Court clarified that the concept of equivalence, as outlined in the Rules, pertains specifically to the institution granting the certificate, not the qualification itself. In other words, the focus is on whether the institution is approved by the Government, rather than the specific course content or name of the institution.
The Court emphasised that 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 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.
Thus, the Court concluded 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.
The Court remarked that 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 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.
The Court said that the change in its stance regarding the eligibility criteria for the LDC post, without conducting any foundational inquiry to assess the superiority of the so-called higher qualifications over the prescribed qualification, amounted to a purely whimsical and arbitrary exercise of discretion. The Court emphasized this was a purely whimsical and arbitrary exercise of discretion on KPSC’s part without actual application of mind as per required parameters.
The Court remarked that a State instrumentality, entrusted with the solemn responsibility of making selections to public services, must uphold the highest standards of probity, transparency, and integrity. It should not remain ambiguous about its norms or resort to falsehoods in its dealings, particularly when presenting information before the Court.
The Court expressed concern that the KPSC had contradicted its earlier sworn affidavits, which undermined the credibility of the selection process. The Court strongly criticized the KPSC for this inconsistency, stating that such conduct was unacceptable in a process that impacts the lives, hopes, and aspirations of candidates who seek public employment.
The Court also expressed hope that KPSC would learn from this experience and, moving forward, refrain from treating the recruitment process lightly, ensuring that candidates are treated with fairness, respect, and in accordance with the law.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
