'Court Can't Declare Equivalence Of Qualification' : Supreme Court Affirms View That B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) Isn't Equal To B.Sc (Chemistry)

The Supreme Court has affirmed a judgment of the Kerala High Court that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) degree cannot be treated as equivalent to to B.Sc(Chemistry) for recruitment to the post of High School Teacher for Physical Science as per a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission in 2008.

The Court observed that it is for the recruiting authority to state whether a particular qualification should be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification.  

In 2008, the KPSC issued a recruitment notification for High School Assistant (Physical Science). The prescribed qualification was that the candidate should have B.Ed Degree in Physical Science and B.Sc in Physics/Chemistry/Home Science.

The appellant, who had B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) and B.Ed(Physical Science), applied for the exam. She was excluded from the merit list on the ground that she did not meet the required qualification criteria. Though she produced a certificate from Calicut University that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) was equivalent to B.Sc(Chemistry), it was not accepted.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which rejected her application in 2012. The same year, the High Court of Kerala also rejected her petition filed against the KAT judgment.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the High Court and the KAT. The bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta referred to the precedent in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others(2019) which held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification.

"Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine," the judgment authored by Justice Mehta stated.

Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Unnikrishnan CV & ors. v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256 which held that held that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed.

"Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published," the Court stated.

The Court rejected the appellant's claim for equivalence in the light of the judgment in Unnikrishnan CV.

"In view of the settled principles of law flowing from the above precedents, we are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008."

Appearances :

For appellant - PA Noor Muhamed;

For Respondents: CK Sasi, Meena K Paulose, Anupriya (for R1, State);

Vipin Nair, Nikhil A Menon, MB Ramya, Mohd Aman Alam, PB Sashankh, Aditya Narendranath(for R2, KPSC)

Case Title : Shifana P.S v.State of Kerala

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 553

Click here to read the judgment