In an affidavit, the secretary of the KPSC "brazenly" told the top court that it had never submitted before the High Court that qualifications such as DCA from all institutions would be rejected.

The Court rejected the stand, saying,

"This statement is incorrect on the face of it as the KPSC had categorically stated, both in its review petition as well as the grounds of appeal in the earlier round, that DCA qualification would not be accepted by it as a qualification for selection to the notified post. It had also asserted that it examined the issue in detail and decided that applications of persons with DCA qualification could not be accepted."

Taking note of the contradictory stands, the Court said no material was placed before it to demonstrate that the KPSC undertook any exercise to study "the curriculum of each of the courses in question to assess and decide whether any of the so-called ‘higher qualifications’ can be said to presuppose acquisition of the lesser qualification prescribed for the post."

It thus concluded that "the blame for this entire imbroglio" was on the KPSC due 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," the Court said.

It further expressed hope that KPSC would learn from the experience and desist in future "from trifling with the lives, hopes and aspirations of candidates who seek public employment."

With these observations, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Anup Bhambhani, Dayan Krishnan, Pratibha Singh & Sudhir Chandra in Round II of DU photocopiers case