ANOOP M. AND OTHERS versus GIREESHKUMAR T.M. AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 325 · Decided: 04-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 325 : 2024 INSC 828
Anoop M. and Others 
v. 
Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others Etc.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12173-12174 of 2024)
04 November 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and 
Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Candidates with Diploma in Computer Applications-DCA/higher 
qualifications, if could be considered for selection to the post 
of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority, when the 
qualification prescribed was Certificate in Data Entry and Office 
Automation from the named Institute or from a similar/equivalent 
government approved institution.
Headnotes†
Service law – Recruitment – Recruitment to the posts of Lower 
Division Clerk-LDC in the Kerala Water Authority – Notification 
by Kerala Public Service Commission-KPSC – Qualification 
prescribed was Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation 
from the named Institute or from similar/equivalent government 
approved institution – Stand of KPSC, in the earlier round 
that DCA was not a qualification to be considered eligible 
for appointment to the post of LDC – However, later, KPSC 
adopted a stand that a higher qualification was not barred, 
and considered candidates with DCA/higher qualification also 
while preparing the probability list – Candidates with Diploma 
in Computer Applications-DCA/higher qualifications, if eligible 
for appointment to the post of LDC:
Held: 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 – KPSC, with 
its vacillating and dithering stance, largely responsible for this 
long-pending litigation, impacting the lives, hopes and aspirations 
of nearly twelve hundred candidates – KPSC, changed its stance, 
* Author
326
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
without any foundational inquiry to determine the superiority of the 
so-called higher qualifications over the prescribed qualification – 
It was a purely whimsical and arbitrary exercise of discretion 
on its part without actual application of mind as per required 
parameters – KPSC to desists, from trifling with the lives, hopes 
and aspirations of candidates who seek public employment – 
Furthermore, on basis of the Rules of 2011 and the Notification, 
it is clear that a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation 
from a Government approved similar/equivalent institution would 
be valid – Equivalence is, not of the qualification itself but of the 
institution from which the said Certificate in Data Entry and Office 
Automation is obtained – Thus, no error committed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court in confirming the view taken by the Single 
Judge of the High Court, non-suiting candidates with DCA/higher 
qualifications who aspired for selection to the post of LDC –  
Kerala Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade) 
Service Rules, 2011. [Paras 15-17, 21, 25, 27, 28]
Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 – Kerala 
Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade) 
Service Rules, 2011 – Applicability, in matter pertaining to 
selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala 
Water Authority:
Held: Rules of 2011 are Special Rules for the Kerala Water 
Authority – Thus, to the extent the Rules of 2011 make special 
provision as to the qualification required for a particular post, the 
same would prevail over the general rule pertaining to qualifications 
in Part II of the Rules of 1958, subject to r. 10(a)(ii) of the Rules 
of 1958 which, prevails over the Special Rules also – Furthermore, 
given the phraseology of the Rules of 2011, the Rules of 1958 
will not have general and all-pervasive applicability at the stage 
of direct recruitment even before a candidate is selected and 
appointed to any of the posts in the categories covered by 
the Rules of 2011, i.e., before he/she becomes an ‘employee’ 
of the Kerala Water Authority – Also, Rule 2 in Part II of the  
Rules of 1958, titled ‘Relation to the Special Rules’, states that if 
any provision in the General Rules contained in Part II thereof is 
repugnant to a provision in the Special Rules applicable to any 
particular service contained in Part III thereof, the latter shall, in 
respect of that service, prevail over the provision in the General 
Rules

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