'Public Service Commission Must Not Resort To Falsehoods' : Supreme Court Slams KPSC's Inconsistency On LDC Post Qualification
The Supreme Court today came down heavily on the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for its inconsistent stances which led to prolonged litigation impacting the hopes and aspirations of nearly twelve hundred candidates who appeared for the recruitment exam for the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) post in the Kerala Water Authority. The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay...
The Supreme Court today came down heavily on the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for its inconsistent stances which led to prolonged litigation impacting the hopes and aspirations of nearly twelve hundred candidates who appeared for the recruitment exam for the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) post in the Kerala Water Authority.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar expressed displeasure with the varying stand of the KPSC in ascertaining the essential qualification for the post of LDC. Initially, the KPSC was adamant on its stand that Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) would not be a qualification to be considered eligible for appointment to the subject post, however later on it changed its earlier stand and notified that DCA certificate holder would be eligible for the LDC post.
Disapproving KPSC's inconsistent stand, the Court observed that, when dealing with careers of a large number of candidates, the Public Service Commission's stands have to be consistent.
“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.”, the court said.
The Court noted that the KPSC's change of stance with regards to the qualification was without foundational inquiry leaving no doubt that the decision was arbitrary and without application of mind.
“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 doubt that it was a purely whimsical and arbitrary exercise of discretion on its part without actual application of mind as per required parameters.”, the court said.
Background
In this case, the KPSC released the recruitment advertisement to fill up the vacant position of LDC in the Kerala Water Authority. Initially, holding a DCA certificate was not an essential criterion, however, when the selection list was prepared the candidates who hold DCA certificates were found in the selection list. The selection list was challenged by the candidates who didn't hold DCA certificates contending that the KPSC can't change its stance on qualification in mid-way as it would have a detrimental impact on their selection because candidates having DCA certificates would get preference over them.
On an appeal filed by the aggrieved candidates who didn't hold DCA certificates, the Kerala High Court held that KPSC could not be permitted to alter its stand, and directed the KPSC to recast and rework the ranked list, by excluding candidates who held DCA certificates, and to publish a modified ranked list by including therein only those candidates who possessed the requisite qualification (not holding DCA certificate) as prescribed in the Recruitment Notification.
Following this, appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court where one set of appeals was filed by the KPSC while the other three sets of appeals were filed by candidates holding DCA/higher qualifications.
Decision
Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that as a government body, the KPSC was expected to maintain consistency in its decision-making process and cannot be allowed to change course and belie legitimate expectations as regularity, predictability, certainty, and fairness are necessary concomitants of governmental action. [See State of Bihar and others vs. Shyama Nandan Mishra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449]
The Court referred to the constitution bench dictum of Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and others where the court held that regulatory bodies/government body is expected to not deviate from the past practice, albeit any such deviation or change must be predicated on greater public interest or harm.
Taking reference from the aforesaid decisions, the Court noted that the KPSC while deviating from its past stance didn't predicate the greater public harm that would occur upon selecting those candidates who didn't fulfill the qualification as per the notification. The Court said that giving primacy to the candidates holding DCA certificates would be against the equality principle enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution as it would undermine the fairness of the selection process.
Case Title: Anoop M. and others Versus Gireeshkumar T.M. and others ETC.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 853