Whether Higher Qualification Would Subsume Lesser Qualification To Be Decided By Employer Based On Its Assessment & Requirements: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that whether a higher qualification would subsume a lesser qualification or whether one qualification is equivalent to another are matters to be decided by the employer, based on their assessment and requirements. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed:

"Whether one qualification is equivalent to another or whether one qualification would subsume another lesser qualification are factors within the realm of academics and in the matter of recruitment to services, it is for the employers to, based on their assessment and requirements, decide such matters. In the absence of patent illegality, perversity or proven legal mala fide, courts will not enter in that arena which is best left to the employer". 

The Court also added that in order to determine whether another qualification not prescribed should be sufficient for a post, the 'Triple Test' under Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter, KS&SR) would have to be satisfied, which is:

1. firstly, that there should be an executive order or standing order recognizing a qualification as equivalent to a qualification specified for the post in the recruitment rules or the Public Service Commission should find such qualification acceptable as per Rule 13(b)(i); 
2. secondly, that acceptance of equivalent qualification should be provided for in the Rules; and 
3. lastly, that such of those qualifications should presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post.

The Court in this case was considering the petition of three persons who had both B.Tech and MBA degrees, and were seeking appointment as Assistant Managers in the Kerala State Backward Class Development Corporation (2nd respondent).

The brief factual matrix reveals that the 2nd respondent Corporation had notified vacancies of Project Assistants on contract basis with qualification of Graduation and DCA. In the competitive selection process, the petitioners were successful and were appointed as Project Assistants on contract basis. Subsequently, when the 2nd respondent Corporation notified vacancies for appointment to the post of Assistant Managers prescribing Degree in any Discipline, MBA in any discipline and PGDCA, as requisite educational qualification, the petitioners were unable to apply for the same since the web portal insisted the PGDCA Certificate to be uploaded. 

The petitioners were thus aggrieved by non-consideration of their candidature. It was averred that their candidatures were liable to be considered and accepted even if they did not hold PGDCA, since B.Tech degree is a higher qualification than the former, and the B. Tech program in Information Technology and Computer Science covers all the topics taught for PGDCA and more. It was also averred that in the selection process for recruitment to the posts of HSST (Junior) and Computer Programmer in Department of Medical Education, PGDCA is not insisted for Engineering Graduates. 

Advocates N. Anand and Rajesh O.N. argued on behalf of the petitioners that the KS&SR are applicable to the 2nd respondent-Corporation and Rule 10(a)(ii) KS&SR suffices qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post. The counsels placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. (2010), wherein it has been held that higher qualifications which presuppose acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. It was thus argued that the 2nd respondent Corporation was liable to accept and consider the candidature of the petitioners for selection to the posts of Assistant Manager. 

The Court in this case took note of the Apex Court decisions in J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1990), Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NTC, Delhi (2003), and Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019), which held that once a conscious decision was taken by the employer prescribing a specific qualification, unless it was found to be most arbitrary, the same could not be a subject matter for judicial review. "Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualification," it was found therein. 

As regards the petitioners' contention that the recruitment notification for appointment to the posts of Higher Secondary School Teachers (Junior), and Computer Programmer in the Medical Education Service did not insist upon PGDCA for those who held Degree in Engineering, the Court found that the same related to recruitment to different institutions.

"It is for the employer/Government Departments to assess their requirements of educational qualifications in the matter of selection of employees. Comparison in educational qualification requirements cannot be drawn in such circumstances, especially when the 2nd respondent Corporation functions in a totally different area/sector," the Court observed. 

On finding that the Triple Test under Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SR was also not satisfied in the present case, the Court held that the petitioners could not rely upon the said provision. 

The petition was thus dismissed. 

Government Pleader K.P. Sarojini and Advocates M. Sasindran, P.C. Sasidharan, and K.S. Anil appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Navaneeth Mohanan K.P. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 278

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment