Shifana P.S vs State Of Kerala

2024 INSC 580 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4468 OF 2013

SHIFANA P.S. .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The instant appeal by special leave is directed against the

judgment dated 16th October, 2012, rendered by the Division

Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby OP(KAT)

No. 3407 of 2012 preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the

order dated 19th June, 2012, passed by the Kerala Administrative

Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram(hereinafter being referred to as

the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing O.A. No. 370 of 2012 preferred by the

appellant, was affirmed.

Signature Not Verified

3. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for the disposal of Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2024.08.06 15:47:42 IST Reason:

the instant appeal are noted herein below.

1

4. The Kerala Public Service Commission(hereinafter being

referred to as the ‘KPSC’) invited applications for the posts of High

School Assistant(Physical Science) vide notification dated 30th

April, 2008. The qualifying criteria in the said advertisement was

as below:-

“A degree in the concerned subject and B.Ed./BT conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. (Concerned subjects are specified in Note 3 below)

(1) …..

(2) …..

(3) Applicant should have taken Physics/Chemistry/Home Science as main Subject for graduation. Degree in Geology (Main) with Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects and B.Ed Degree (Physical/Science) can also be considered as an alternative qualification for the post (GO(MS) No. 195/96/G.Edn.

Dated 22.7.1996).”

5. The appellant, who holds a graduation degree in

B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) and a B.Ed(Physical Science), appeared

in the written test on 10th October, 2009 and cleared the exam.

The KPSC invited the appellant vide letter dated 03rd October, 2011

for the interview requiring her to produce the equivalency

certificate evidencing that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) is equivalent

to B.Sc(Chemistry).

6. The appellant claims that the University of Calicut had issued

a certificate verifying that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) offered by the

2 said University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc(Chemistry)

course for the purpose of employment and higher studies.

7. The KPSC released the final merit list. However, the

appellant's name did not figure therein. The reasoning assigned for

excluding the appellant’s name was that the High Court of Kerala

had held in the case of A. Suma v. The Kerala Public Service

Commission & Ors.1 that under the scheme of Kerala State &

Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, the KPSC is incompetent to deal

with the question of ‘equivalence’ of educational or other

qualifications prescribed by the special rules, unless the special

rules provide for the recognition of qualifications other than those

prescribed.

8. Being aggrieved by her non-selection, the appellant preferred

O.A. No. 370 of 2012 before the learned Tribunal seeking a

direction that the respondents be commanded to include her name

at the appropriate position in the final merit list according to the

marks which she had obtained in the written test held by the

KPSC. The original application preferred by the appellant came to

be rejected by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 19th June, 2012,

holding that the appellant failed to meet the qualifying criteria and

1 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 5028

3 thus she was ineligible for appointment to the post of High School

Assistant(Physical Science).

9. The appellant assailed the order passed by the Tribunal by

preferring OP(KAT) No. 3407 of 2012 in the High Court of Kerala.

The learned Division Bench rejected the petition filed by the

appellant vide judgment dated 16th October, 2012 which is

subjected to challenge in this appeal by special leave.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-

10. Learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and

fervently contended that the Tribunal did not non-suit the

appellant on the ground that the degree of B.Sc(Polymer

Chemistry) was not equivalent to the degree in B.Sc(Chemistry)

required under the notification. The reasoning assigned by the

Tribunal in the order dated 19th June, 2012 was that the appellant

had not studied physics as one of the subsidiary subjects. He

urged that the said reasoning is without any basis whatsoever

because the University of Calicut had verified that B.Sc(Polymer

Chemistry) degree obtained by the appellant was equivalent to the

degree of B.Sc(Chemistry) required under the advertisement. A

fortiori, the appellant became eligible to appear in the interview on

her standing in the final merit list. He thus urged that the finding

4 recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court in the

impugned judgment holding that the appellant was not qualified

for the post, is illegal and arbitrary and the appellant deserves the

relief claimed for.

Submissions on behalf of respondent-KPSC: -

11. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-

KPSC drew the Court’s attention to the qualifying criteria

incorporated in the notification dated 03rd October, 2011(supra)

and urged that the same indicates in unambiguous terms that the

aspirant for the post must be holding a graduation degree in

B.Sc(Chemistry). He contended that the issue of equivalence

cannot be gone into either by the Commission or the Court while

exercising the power of judicial review. The said domain is

exclusive to the experts/educational institutions authorised in this

regard. He submitted that the Division Bench of High Court has

assigned unassailable reasoning for denying relief to the appellant

and thus, the present appeal merits dismissal.

Discussion and Conclusion: -

12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment

and the material placed on record.

5

13. Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the post

advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008 was a degree in

B.Sc(Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant does not hold such a

degree. It is the case of the appellant that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry)

degree acquired by her is required to be treated as equivalent to a

degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). However, the said argument does not

hold water and is misconceived.

14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others

v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others2 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.

(emphasis supplied)

15. In Unnikrishnan CV and Others v. Union of India and

Others3, a three Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the

earlier judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v.

2 (2019) 2 SCC 404 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 343

6 Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another4 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.

16. The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that the

University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10th October,

2011 verifying that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) course of the said

University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc(Chemistry)

course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this

Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV(supra). 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.

17. As a result, we find no justifiable reason so as to interfere

with the judgment dated 16th October, 2012 rendered by the High

Court.

18. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such. No order

as to costs.

4 (2009) 1 SCC 610

7

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………….……….J. (HIMA KOHLI)

………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

AUGUST 06, 2024

8