Kerala High Court Prevents Public Service Commission From Taking U-Turn, Admitting Candidates With Higher Qualification After Opposing It

The Kerala High Court on Monday categorically laid down that the Kerala Public Services Commission cannot alter its previous stance and subsequently admit candidates with higher qualifications for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority.

The petitioners in the present writ petitions were aggrieved by the inclusion of candidates who do not have the prescribed qualifications, but higher qualifications, as per the notification to the post of LDC, in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission (PSC). 

"...it is imperative to recognize that the Public Service Commission, having steadfastly maintained a particular stance in the earlier proceedings and vigorously objected to the acceptance of candidates with advanced qualifications, cannot justifiably alter its stance by subsequently admitting individuals with higher qualifications. Such a reversal of position, if sanctioned, holds the potential to reopen previously concluded judgments of the Court. This not only raises concerns regarding the abuse of the judicial process but also carries significant ramifications for the overall administration of justice," the Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. observed.

Factual Background

Notification inviting applications to the post of LDC in Kerala Water Authority had been issued by the PSC, indicating the following qualifications - 1. Degree in any discipline; and 2. Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation of minimum 3 months (120 hrs) duration awarded by Lal Bahadur Sasthri Centre for Science and Technology (LBS), Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD) or from similar/equivalent institution approved by the Government. 

The petitioners herein who had the requisite qualifications, applied for the post. It is noted that subsequently, one of the aspirants approached the Court contending that Degree/Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) is the higher qualification for the post of LDC and that he is eligible to apply for the post.

Another Single Judge disposed the matter holding that candidates with higher qualifications would also be eligible for the post of LDC, and issuing directions to the PSC to issue a revised notification incorporating the qualifications and also to specify whether equivalent or higher qualifications should also be accepted and a chance to the eligible candidates be given to apply for the post.

The appeal against the afore finding by the Single Judge was sustained by the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that since no changes had been made by the KPSC with respect to the qualifications after the issuance of the notification, and since PSC had taken a decision that DCA was not an equivalent qualification for the post in question, there was no justification for the Single Judge to have issued the afore directions. It was added that even if a person with higher qualifications had applied, the same would have been rejected when the scrutiny took place before shortlisting the candidate for the interview. 

Subsequently, the PSC issued the rank list including the names of candidates unqualified candidates holding qualifications other than what had been prescribed in the notification. The petitioners asserted that if unqualified candidates with qualifications other than those mentioned in the notification were included, the petitioners were likely to be excluded from the shortlist. 

It is thus challenging the same that the present writ petitions were filed. 

The respondents argued that the probability list that was issued by the PSC included the names of candidates who had secured 40 marks and above in the main list and subsequent supplementary lists, and added that since higher qualification was not barred, candidates with DCA qualifications were also included in the ranked list. It was submitted that if the higher qualification is in the same faculty, it would presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification for the post, and that inclusion of higher qualifications is permissible as per Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II KS & SSR Rules. 

Findings of the Court

The Court took note that stand taken by the Commission before the Court in the present plea was contrary to the stand taken by them in the appeal filed by them challenging the decision of the Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation. 

The Court noted that the Commission had contended before the Division Bench that it had rejected 590 applications of persons with DCA qualifications, pursuant to which the latter held that even if a person with higher qualifications had applied, the same would have been rejected when the scrutiny took place before shortlisting the candidates for the interview

In stark contrast to the same, the Court observed that the Commission permitted permitted persons with higher qualifications including DCA, PGDCA, MCA, BCA Computer Science, BTech, B.Sc Computer Science, etc., to participate in the OMR test and had even included their names in the probability list. 

It was thus of the considered view that as the PSC had hitherto y objected to the acceptance of candidates with advanced qualifications, it could not alter its stance by subsequently admitting individuals with higher qualifications. 

"It is essential to recall that the Commission had unequivocally asserted before the Division Bench, through its counter, that it had declined 590 applications from individuals possessing DCA qualifications. The importance of this statement cannot be overstated. The Commission's rejection of applications on the basis of their higher qualifications by holding that such applications are not acceptable had persuaded this Court to pass a judgment on its basis. They cannot now take a change of stance and accept higher qualifications. This would result in serious miscarriage of justice. Such actions would not only undermine the integrity of the Commission's initial decisions but also erode the principle of consistency and fairness in the recruitment process. The law is well settled that even if erroneous, an inter-party judgment binds the party if the court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis," the Court said. 

It thus quashed the ranked list issued by the PSC to the extent that it included the names of candidates holding higher qualifications. The Commission was thus directed to recast and rework the list, and publish the modified version of the rank list by including candidates who possess the requisite qualifications, within a period of 6 weeks. 

Counsel for the Petitioners in WP(C) NO. 23679 OF 2023: Advocates P. Nandakumar, Amrutha Sanjeev, Vivek Vijayakumar, Riya Tomy, Indu C. Sreekumar

Counsel for the Respondents in WP(C) NO. 23679 OF 2023: Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu, Standing Counsel for PSC P.C. Sasidharan, Standing Counsel for Kerala Water Authority P.M. Johny, and Advocates M.U. Vijayalakshmi, P. Mohandas, K. Sudhinkumar, Sabu Pullan, Gokul D. Sudhakaran, R. Bhaskara Krishnan, Bharat Mohan, A. Haroon Rasheed

Counsel for the Petitioners in WP(C) NO. 19463 OF 2023: Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, Aparna Narayan Menon, Chinnu Maria Antony

Counsel for the Respondents in WP(C) NO. 19463 OF 2023: Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu, Standing Counsel for PSC P.C. Sasidharan, Standing Counsel for Kerala Water Authority P.M. Johny, and Advocates M.U. Vijayalakshmi, S. Subhash Chand, Brijesh Mohan, A. Haroon Rasheed, D. Sreekumar, Sachin Ramesh, Keerthi Solomon

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 620 

Case Title: Gireeshkumar T.M. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter

Case Numbers: WP(C) NO. 23679 OF 2023 and WP(C) NO. 19463 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment