Supreme Court slams Kerala Public Service Commission for inconsistent stand on job eligibility

The Supreme Court recently slammed the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for its "vacillating and dithering stance" in a matter related to the appointment of persons to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDCs) in Kerala Water Authority (KWA).

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that KPSC's inconsistency had impacted the lives, hopes and aspirations of nearly 1,200 candidates.

The Court was hearing an appeal against the Kerala High Court's ruling which held that candidates with a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) or higher qualifications are ineligible for the LDC position in KWA.

It found that in an earlier round of litigation before the High Court, KPSC was steadfast in its stand that DCA was not a qualification to be considered for LDC post but despite a favorable court ruling, had subsequently changed its stance.

"Thereafter, the change in its stance, without any foundational inquiry to determine the superiority of the so-called higher qualifications over the prescribed qualification, 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 Bench said.

In the present case, the KPSC in 2012 had issued a notification requiring a degree and a certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation. A candidate with a DCA challenged the eligibility criteria before the High Court, arguing that higher qualifications should also be considered.

The High Court initially sided with the candidate.

However on appeal, a Division Bench ruled that only the specified qualifications were valid.

Despite the High Court's ruling, the KPSC later included candidates with DCA or higher qualifications in its rank list. Aggrieved by this, candidates with the prescribed qualifications filed a writ petition.

A single-judge ordered KPSC to revise the list by excluding those with unapproved qualification.

The appeals against the single-judge's decision were dismissed; the KPSC and the aggrieved candidates then approached the top court.

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.

Senior Advocate V Giri and advocates Vipin Nair, MR Ramya, Mohd Aman Alam, PB Sashaankh, Aditya Narendranath, Roy Abraham, Reena Roy, Adithya Koshy Roy, Yaduinder Lal, Rajni Ohri Lal, Shrey Kumar and Himinder Lal appeared for the petitioners.

Senior Advocate Shaji P Chaly and advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Mohammed Sadique TA, Thulasi K Raj, Aparna Menon, Chinnu Maria Antony, , P Nandakumar, Abdulla Naseeh VT, Shivam Sharma, Abreeda Banu, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar and Ajith Anto Perumbully appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]