Service Law –Appointment –Equivalency of degrees – Principle of “change in the rules of the game midway” – When not applicable – Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Clause 10 (a)(ii), 13 –Appointment to the posts of High School Assistants in the State of Kerala by Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC)– Employment notifications stipulated B.Ed in concerned subject as eligibility criteria–Appellants had B.Ed degrees from outside Kerala though not in the concerned subjects – Objection raised –Subsequently, two Universities of the State of Kerala certified the appellants’ B.Ed. degrees to have equivalent status which was followed by Government Orders (GOs) conferring on the subjects in which the appellants obtained B.Ed. degrees, equivalency to the required subjects–On the basis of the GOs, Tribunal allowed the petitions filed by the appellants and directed KPSC to include their names in the ranked list – Orders set aside by High Court–On appeal, held:GOs treated the equivalency to be operating on the dates of obtaining B.Ed. degrees–Subject GOs only recognised an existing state of affairs so far as the nature of the degrees were concerned and did not create fresh value for the degrees which the appellants possessed– The GOs were not general orders but were person specific,relating to the two appellants and in substance will have to be interpreted as clarificatory in nature –Treating the appellants’ degrees as equivalent to those required under the applicable notifications by the GOs issued subsequently would not change the rules of the game midway –Appellants possessed equivalent qualifications when they applied for the posts –Impugned judgments set aside – Orders of the Tribunal restored – Kerala Education Rules, 1959 – Chapter XXXI – Clause 2(2)(a).
Service Law –Objection to eligibility criteria–Kerala Education Rules, 1959 – Chapter XXXI – Clause 2(2)(a)– Legality
Ed. Note : Name of the respondent(s) in the cause title as corrected vide subsequent order dated 28th January, 2022.
of introducing specific subjects in B.Ed. as qualifying criteria for the posts of High School Assistants challenged by appellants –Held: Said Clause postulates B.Ed. degree simplicitor as the eligibility criteria–Further, no specific notification/order issued by KPSC has been brought on record under which the eligibility criteria of holding B.Ed. Degree had to be in the concerned subject for the posts in question– However, appellants having participated in the said selection process without raising any objection, cannot question the eligibility criteria specified in the employment notification – Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Clause 13. Words & Phrases – ‘equivalence’ – Meaning of – Discussed. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 On a plain reading of the Clause 2(2)(a)of Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, it is apparent that no specific subject in B.Ed. has been made to be the qualifying criteria. The graduation requirement in concerned subject is there, but going by the said Clause, it postulates B.Ed. degree simplicitor as the eligibility criteria. So far as the present appellants are concerned, no dispute has been raised over their graduation being in the concerned subject. Clause 13 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 permits the Commission to prescribe special qualifications in cases where appointments have to be made in consultation with it or by the State Government or by an appointing authority with approval of State Government in other cases. No specific notification or order issued by the KPSC has been brought to Court’s notice under which the eligibility criteria of holding B.Ed. Degree had to be in the concerned subject for the posts of High School Assistants. But, the appellants cannot take aid of this argument as the respective employment notifications had specified B.Ed. in concerned subject. The appellants having participated in the said selection process without raising any objection on that count, it would not be open to them to question the eligibility criteria specified in the employment notification. Thus, the case is proceeded on the basis that the candidates for the posts in question were required to have B.Ed. degree in the concerned subject. [Paras 16, 18][952-G-H; 953-A-B; 954-A-C] & ORS.
1.2 The power of the State Government to make orders on the question of equivalence is not in dispute. Such power, inter alia, stems from Clause 10(a) (ii) of 1958 Rules. In the two GOs it has been specified that the respective B.Ed. degrees of the appellants through regular study were equivalent to B.Ed. degree in Natural Science. In the case of PK, his B.Ed. Degree in Biological Science was recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. Natural Science Degree of Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. In the case of AD, the GO stipulated that Double Main B.Ed. (Biological Science Education and Physical Science Education) degree obtained by her through regular mode was recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. Natural Science Degree of University of Calicut. A plain reading of the two GOs clearly reflect that their degrees were equivalent to the requisite qualifications contained in the eligibility criteria. The word “equivalence” in its plain meaning implies something which is equal to another. In the field of academics, application of the principle of equivalency in relation to degrees in two subjects would mean that they had the same standing or status all along, unless the official instrument according equivalency specifies a date from which the respective subjects would be treated as such, in express terms or by implication. [Paras 22, 25 and 26][955-D-E; 957-D-F; 958-B-D]
Zonal Manager, Zonal Officer, Bank of India Kochi & Ors. v. Aarya K Babu &Anr. (2019) 8 SCC 587 : [2019]
11 SCR 627 – distinguished.
A. Suma v. The Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. (2011) 1 KLT1 (FB); Beena R. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors. (2017) 15 SCC 306 : [2017] 6 SCR 510 – held inapplicable.
T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu (2008) 9 SCC 403 : [2008]
13 SCR 791 – referred to.
1.3 Whether a GO would have prospective effect or relate back to an earlier date is a question which would have to be decided on the basis of text and tenor of the respective orders. The GOs which declared appellants’ degrees to be equivalent to those required as per the applicable notifications were not general orders but these two orders were person specific, relating to the two appellants. Once the GOs specifically declared that their B.Ed. degrees were equivalent to the designated subject which formed part of the employment notification, the GOs in substance have to be interpreted as clarificatory in nature and these cannot be construed to have had elevated the status or position of the degree they already had after the declaration was made in the GOs. The subject GOs only recognised an existing state of affairs so far as the nature of the degrees were concerned and did not create fresh value for the degrees which the appellants possessed. Though these equivalent orders were not in existence on the dates of issue of employment notifications, the GOs in substance recognize such status from the dates of obtaining such degrees. The GOs do not reveal any intervening circumstances which could be construed to imply that the respective degrees acquired the equivalent status because of such circumstances occurring subsequent to grant of their B.Ed. degrees. The Notes to Clause
7 of the employment notifications postulated disclosure of the number and date of the orders on equivalence. But the GOs treated the equivalency to be operating on the dates of obtaining such degrees. Thus, the defect, if any, on disclosure requirement, shall stand cured on issue of the University orders followed by the GOs. Treating the appellants’ degrees as equivalent to those required under the applicable notifications by the GOs issued in the year 2019 would not result in change in the rules of the game midway. The appellants’ degrees in B.Ed. were equivalent to those required by the employment notifications and the equivalency orders were merely clarificatory in nature. Thus, there was no fundamental breach of Notes (v) and (vi) of Clause 7 of the respective employment notifications in the cases of the appellants. The appellants possessed equivalent qualifications when they applied for the posts. The judgments under appeal are set aside and the orders of the Tribunal are restored. [Paras 27-29][958E-H; 959-A-B, F; 960-A] P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 385; Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Mishra &Ors. 1993 Supp (3) SCC
181 : [1993] 1 SCR 241; Secretary, A.P. Public Service & ORS.
Commission v. B. Swapna & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 154 : [2005] 2 SCR 991; Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 484 : [2015] 3 SCR 729 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.