AJITH K & Ors. v. ANEESH K.S & Ors.

Judgment

11 S.C.R. 495 495 AJITH K & ORS. v. ANEESH K.S. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6178-6185 of 2019) AUGUST 21, 2019 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.] Kerela State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958: r. 10(a)(ii) – Qualifications – Post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in Municipal Common Service – Qualification to the post of Inspector/ Food Inspector Grade II was Sanitary Inspector Diploma Course- SIDC – Advertisement of vacancies – Candidates possessing the qualification of Diploma in Health Inspectors Course-DHIC also included in the shortlists – Challenge to, before the tribunal – During pendency, three member Committee report that two year DHIC is a higher qualification – Direction of the tribunal that shortlist of candidates be recasted by excluding candidates in possession of DHIC qualification – Writ petition by the affected candidates – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: None of the conditions stipulated in r.10(a)(ii) have been fulfilled – There was no application of mind to the requirements contained in r.10(a)(ii) – Reference to the diploma being an additional qualification or that diploma being acceptable in the Health Department is an extraneous consideration – There is no finding in the three member Committee Report that the acquisition of the DHIC pre-supposes the completion of the certificate course – There was no determination of equivalence by any executive order or standing orders of the State Government – Thus, the order of the High Court does not suffer from any error. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1 On a careful analysis, it emerges that none of the conditions stipulated in Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerela State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 have been fulfilled. The first situation contemplated by Rule 10(a)(ii) is where qualifications are recognized by executive orders or standing orders of the 495 A B C D E F G H 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R. government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post. This is not satisfied. With reference to the second situation contemplated in Rule 10(a)(ii) there was no determination by KPSC in accordance with Rule 13(b)(i) of the equivalence of the qualifications. Finally, the last condition contemplated in Rule 10(a)(ii) adverts to those qualifications which pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for a post. The expression pre-suppose means subsumed in. All that is found from the report of the three-member Committee are general observations about the duration of the DHIC being longer, of a similarity of the topics in the syllabi and a comparison between the number of theory and practical sessions. There has been no finding that the acquisition of the DHIC pre-supposes the completion of the certificate course. [Para 12] [504-F; 505-A-B]

1.2 The reference to the diploma being an additional qualification is extraneous to Rule 10(a)(ii). The reference to a diploma being acceptable in the Health Department is again an extraneous consideration. Ex facie, it is evident that in coming to the conclusion extracted above, there was no application of mind to the requirements contained in Rule 10(a)(ii). There was no determination of equivalence by any executive order or standing order of the State Government. Nor was there any finding that a DHIC pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification. KPSC has not carried out any exercise as required by the provisions of the rule. The judgment of the High Court does not suffer from error. [Para 16, 17] [507-D-F] Jyoti K K v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) 15 SCC 596 - distinguished.