AJITH K & ORS. versus ANEESH K.S. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 21-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 495
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.
State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2 SCC 170 ; Zahoor
Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC
404 ; P M Latha v. State of Kerala (2003) 3 SCC 541 :
[2003] 2 SCR 653 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2010) 15 SCC 596
distinguished
Para 14
(2015) 2 SCC 170
referred to
Para 14
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
497
(2019) 2 SCC 404
referred to
Para 14
[2003] 2 SCR 653
referred to
Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6178-
6185 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2018 of the High Court
of  Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (KAT) Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 &
86 of 2018.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Vinodh Kanna B., Mrs. G. Chitrakala,
Advs. for the Appellants.
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K. Joy,  Alim Anvar,
Reegan S. Bel,  Abhilash MR, Sayooj Mohandas M., Amith Krishnan,
Muthu Krishnan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.