ANOOP M. AND OTHERSversusGIREESHKUMAR T.M. AND OTHERS ETC.

                 [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 in Part II of the Rules of 1958. [Para 13]
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                            327

      Anoop M. and Others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others Etc.


                              Case Law Cited
     Jyoti K.K. and Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
     15 SCC 596 – distinguished.
     Ajith K and others v. Aneesh K.S. and Others [2019] 11 SCR
     495 : (2019) 17 SCC 147; Sheo Shyam v. State of U.P. [2004] 2
     SCR 406 : (2005) 10 SCC 314; Sivanandan C.T. and Others v.
     High Court of Kerala and Others [2017] 13 SCR 226 : (2024) 3
     SCC 799; State of Bihar and others v. Shyama Nandan Mishra
     [2022] 11 SCR 1136 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 554 – referred to.
                                List of Acts
     Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958; Kerala Water
     Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade) Service Rules,
     2011; Kerala High Court Rules.
                             List of Keywords
     Diploma in Computer Applications-DCA; Higher qualifications;
     Selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Kerala Water
     Authority; Qualification prescribed; Certificate in Data Entry and
     Office Automation; Named Institute; Similar/equivalent government
     approved institution; Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science and
     Technology, Institute of Human Resources Development; Eligible
     qualification; Equivalent qualifications; Special Rules; General
     Rules; Acquisition of lesser qualification; Whimsical and arbitrary
     exercise of discretion; State instrumentality; Solemn responsibility;
     Public services; High standard of probity and transparency; Public
     employment; Direct recruitment.
                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12173-12174
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2024 of the High Court
     of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos. 1941 and 1945 of 2023
     With
     Civil Appeal Nos. 12175-12176,12177-12178 and 12179-12180 of 2024
                         Appearances for Parties
     V.Giri, Shaji P Chaly, Sr. Advs., Vipin Nair, M.R. Ramya, Mohd Aman
     Alam, P.B. Sashaankh, Aditya Narendranath, Roy Abraham,
     Ms. Reena Roy, Adithya Koshy Roy, Yaduinder Lal, Ms. Rajni
328                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Ohri Lal, Shrey Kumar, Himinder Lal, Mohammed Sadique T.A.,
       Kaleeswaram Raj, Ms. Thulasi K Raj, Ms. Aprana Menon, Ms. Aparna
       Menon, Ms. Chinnu Maria Antony, P. Nandakumar, Abdulla Naseeh
       V.T., Shivam Sharma, Ms. Abreeda Banu, Nishe Rajen Shonker,
       Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Ajith Anto Perumbully, M.B. Ramya,
       Advs. for the appearing parties.
                   Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                  Judgment
       Sanjay Kumar, J.
1.     Leave granted.
2.     With a tortuous trajectory spanning over a dozen years, this weary
       litigation craves closure. Hanging in balance is recruitment to several
       posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority.
       A notification was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission
       (KPSC) in this regard on 16.07.2012 for filling up 102 existing
       vacancies and 43 anticipated vacancies in the said post. 1192
       applications were received in response thereto. The qualifications
       prescribed in the notification were:
       (i)    Degree in any discipline and
       (ii)   Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation of minimum 3
              months (120 hours) duration awarded by Lal Bahadur Shastri
              Centre for Science and Technology (LBS), Institute of Human
              Resource Development (IHRD), or from similar/equivalent
              institution approved by the Government.
3.     While so, one Shebin A.S., who held a Diploma in Computer
       Applications (DCA), filed WP (C) No. 24279 of 2012 before the High
       Court of Kerala contending that the qualifications, as prescribed, would
       eliminate candidates who held higher qualifications as it restricted
       the zone of consideration to certificate holders only. By judgment
       dated 01.08.2014, a learned Judge agreed with him and allowed
       the writ petition. The learned Judge opined that the notification
       should have been more transparent with regard to the qualifications,
       specifying whether equivalent/higher qualifications could also be
       accepted. The KPSC was accordingly directed to issue a revised
       notification, keeping this aspect in mind.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                          329

      Anoop M. and Others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others Etc.


4.   Aggrieved thereby, the KPSC filed Review Petition No. 884 of 2014
     pointing out that there was no stipulation in the notification or in the
     Special Rules applicable to the post of LDC that a higher/equivalent
     qualification is also acceptable. The KPSC further stated that it
     had examined the issue in detail and decided that applications of
     persons with DCA qualification could not be accepted for the said
     post. It specifically averred that 590 applications of persons having
     DCA qualification had been received but were not treated as valid.
     Asserting that the judgment, if complied with, would go against the
     Rules as DCA was not a notified qualification, the KPSC sought
     review of the direction to issue a revised notification. However, the
     Review Petition was dismissed on 24.02.2015.
5.   The KPSC, thereupon, filed Writ Appeal No. 1501 of 2015. It asserted
     that, as an equivalent or higher qualification was not prescribed
     under the Rules, it was not accepting DCA qualification for the post
     of LDC. It further asserted that, at no point of time had it taken any
     decision to accept applications of candidates with DCA qualification
     as the qualification prescribed and notified for the post did not indicate
     that persons with DCA qualification would also be permitted to
     participate in the selection process. Accepting the stand of the KPSC,
     a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowed its writ appeal,
     vide judgment dated 13.06.2022. The Division Bench took note of
     the KPSC’s contention that it had never notified any change in the
     qualifications and that it had already decided that DCA was not an
     equivalent qualification for the post in question as the equivalence
     mentioned in the notification was only with respect to the institution.
     The Division Bench, therefore, opined that, as no change had been
     made by the KPSC with regard to the qualification after issuance of
     the notification and, as a matter of fact, the KPSC had decided that
     DCA was not an equivalent qualification for the post in question, there
     was no warrant for allowing the writ petition and issuing a direction
     to revise the notification. The Division Bench noted that even if a
     person with higher qualification had applied, the same would have
     been rejected during the scrutiny before shortlisting of candidates for
     interviews. The Division Bench accordingly set aside the judgment
     of the learned Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
6.   Despite this judgment in its favour, the KPSC surprisingly chose to
     shortlist candidates in a ranked list by including persons who held
     DCA qualification or other higher qualifications. Aggrieved thereby,
330                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Gireeshkumar T.M. and six others, who held the prescribed Certificates
       in Data Entry and Office Automation, filed WP (C) No. 23679
       of 2023 before the Kerala High Court. Their prayer therein was to
       quash the KPSC’s ranked list, which included candidates who did
       not possess the prescribed qualification, and to direct the KPSC to
       publish a modified ranked list, including only such candidates who
       had the prescribed qualification. They also sought a declaration that
       only candidates who had the prescribed qualification were entitled
       to be appointed as LDCs in the Kerala Water Authority. WP (C) No.
       19463 of 2023 was filed on the same lines and with similar prayers
       by Sajitha S. and three others. It may be noted that, by the date of
       disposal of these cases, 29 candidates with DCA/higher qualification
       figured as respondents in WP (C) No. 23679 of 2023, while 72 such
       candidates were shown as respondents in WP (C) No. 19463 of 2023.
7.     Notably, the KPSC filed a counter affidavit taking a position contrary
       to its earlier stand. According to it, after the Division Bench judgment,
       selection to the posts of LDC was taken up and an OMR examination
       was conducted. On the basis of the results thereof, a probability
       list was published on 03.06.2023 of candidates who had secured
       40 marks or above. The KPSC claimed that, as a higher qualification
       was not barred, it had considered such candidates also while preparing
       the probability list and those with DCA/higher qualification were also
       included therein. Reference was made by the KPSC to Rule 10(a)
       (ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.
8.     A learned Judge of the Kerala High Court noted that the KPSC had
       changed its stance despite carrying the matter in appeal on the earlier
       occasion and held that the KPSC could not be permitted to alter
       its stand, as permitting such reversal of position by it would mean
       reopening the previously concluded judgments. The learned Judge
       was of the opinion that, even if erroneous, an inter-party judgment
       would bind the parties thereto. The learned Judge, accordingly,
       allowed the writ petitions on 30.10.2023 and directed the KPSC to
       recast and rework the ranked list, by excluding candidates who were
       not qualified, and to publish a modified ranked list by including therein
       only those candidates who possessed the requisite qualification as
       prescribed in the Notification dated 16.07.2012.
9.     The correctness of this common judgment dated 30.10.2023 was
       canvassed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1941 and 1945 of 2023 before a
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                       331

      Anoop M. and Others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others Etc.


     Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Writ Appeal No. 1941 of
     2023 was filed by Rikha Susheel and four candidates, who held DCA/
     higher qualifications, while Writ Appeal No. 1945 of 2023 was filed
     by Rikha Susheel and fifteen such other candidates. All of them had
     figured as respondents in the two writ petitions. These writ appeals
     were dismissed, vide common judgment dated 30.01.2024. The
     Division Bench held therein that there was no error in the reasoning
     of the learned Judge.
10. It is this judgment that is subjected to challenge before us. One
    set of appeals was filed by the KPSC while the other three sets of
    appeals were filed by candidates holding DCA/higher qualifications.
    One such set of appeals was filed by Anoop M and twenty-nine
    candidates who were not parties to the subject proceedings before
    the Kerala High Court.
11. We may note, at this stage, that the issue of non-impleadment of
    all the affected candidates was not argued before us. However, as
    it has been raised in the grounds, we deem it proper to consider
    the same also. Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules states that
    all persons directly affected should be made parties to the petition
    but where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may,
    with the permission of the Court, be impleaded on behalf of or
    for the benefit of all persons so affected, but notice of the original
    petition, on admission, should be given to all such persons either
    by personal service or by public advertisement. As already noted,
    several candidates possessing DCA/higher qualifications were either
    impleaded or got impleaded in the two writ petitions. In all, 101 of
    them figured as parties therein. This aspect was noted by the Division
    Bench and it was held that there was sufficient representation of their
    collective interest. Further, the very purpose of Rule 148 is to protect
    the interest of those affected persons who may be ignorant of the
    litigation and would be taken by surprise by the adverse developments
    therein. Given the long history of this litigation, none of the affected
    candidates can be presumed to have remained unaware of it. We,
    therefore, find no merit in this ground.
12. The qualification set out in the Notification dated 16.07.2012 for the
    post of LDC was strictly in keeping with the qualification prescribed
    therefor at Category No.27 in ‘Wing II – Ministerial Service’ in the
    Kerala Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade)
332                                                            [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Service Rules, 2011 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 2011’). Rule 6 of
       the Rules of 2011 provides that the rules relating to reservation
       of appointments, i.e., General Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State
       and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of
       1958’), shall apply to the appointments by direct recruitment to the
       categories of posts therein. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2011 speaks
       of the applicability of Parts I, II and III of the Rules of 1958 to the
       ‘employees’ of the Kerala Water Authority in matters of pay fixation,
       joining time, travelling allowances, leave, pension, other retirement
       benefits, etc.
13. 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.
    It is relevant to note that 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 in Part II of the Rules of 1958.
    The Rules of 2011 are Special Rules for the Kerala Water Authority.
    Therefore, 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. However, this would be subject to Rule 10(a)(ii)
    of the Rules of 1958 which, as specifically provided therein, prevails
    over the Special Rules also.
14. Rule 10 in Part II (General Rules) of the Rules of 1958 deals with
    qualifications. It reads as follows:
            ‘10. Qualifications.- (a) (i) The educational or other
            qualifications, if any, required for a post shall be as specified
            in the Special Rules applicable to the service in which that
            post is included or as specified in the executive orders of
            Government in cases where Special Rules have not been
            issued for the post/service.
            (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules
            or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognized by
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                          333

      Anoop M. and Others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others Etc.


          executive orders or standing orders of Government as
          equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the
          Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission
          as per rule 13 (b) (i) of the said rules in cases where
          acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the
          rules and such of those qualifications which pre-suppose
          the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the
          post, shall also be sufficient for the post.
15. Pertinently, insofar as the post of LDC is concerned, the Rules
    of 2011 do not speak of a qualification ‘equivalent’ to a Certificate in
    Data Entry and Office Automation from Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for
    Science and Technology, Institute of Human Resources Development,
    also being eligible. What is stated therein is that a Certificate in Data
    Entry and Office Automation from a similar/equivalent institution,
    approved by the Government, would be accepted as an eligible
    qualification. The equivalence is, thus, not of the qualification itself
    but of the institution from which the said Certificate in Data Entry
    and Office Automation is obtained.
16. Significantly, where they so intend, the Rules of 2011 specifically
    provide for ‘equivalent qualifications’ being eligible in relation to
    particular posts. For instance, for the post of Legal Assistant in
    ‘Wing II – Ministerial Service’ a Degree in Law from a University in
    Kerala or from a University recognized by any of the Universities
    in Kerala is the prescribed qualification, but its equivalent is also
    acceptable. Similarly, for the post of Confidential Assistant Grade II,
    equivalent qualifications to those prescribed are acceptable. So is
    the case with the post of Lower Division Typist, where equivalent
    qualifications are explicitly shown to be acceptable. In effect, the
    failure to mention an ‘equivalent qualification’ being acceptable
    for the post of LDC clearly manifests the deliberate design and
    intent of the Rules of 2011 to limit the equivalence in that context
    only to the institution from which the Certificate in Data Entry and
    Office Automation is obtained and not to enlarge the eligibility by
    encompassing equivalent qualifications also.
17. Given the aforestated rule position in the Rules of 2011 and the
    verbatim reproduction of the same in the Notification dated 16.07.2012,
    it is clear and certain that a qualification equivalent to a Certificate
    in Data Entry and Office Automation from Lal Bahadur Shastri
334                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Centre for Science and Technology, Institute of Human Resource
       Development, is not acceptable but a Certificate in Data Entry and
       Office Automation from a Government approved similar/equivalent
       institution would be valid. Without the prescription of an equivalent
       qualification being recognized, the first part of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the
       Rules of 1958 would not be attracted, as it speaks of applicability
       only in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is
       provided for in the Special Rules. On the other hand, the latter part of
       Rule 10(a)(ii) speaks of qualifications that presuppose acquisition of
       the prescribed lower qualification being treated as sufficient. It is the
       case of the appellants before us that they would fall in this category
       as they possess either a Diploma in Computer Applications or other
       higher qualifications, such as a Diploma in Computer Engineering/
       Diploma in Data Entry and Console Operation/MCA/M.Sc. in Software
       Engineering, etc.
18. The Secretary of the KPSC filed an additional affidavit on 20.04.2024
    before us, wherein he brazenly stated that the submission before the
    High Court earlier was never that qualifications such as DCA from
    all institutions would be rejected. 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.
19. The KPSC then filed an additional affidavit on 02.09.2024. Therein,
    it was stated by its Secretary that recognition of DCA as a higher
    qualification was not a one-time isolated decision but a well-
    considered practice that the KPSC consistently applied in various
    selections over several years. Instances were given of the KPSC
    accepting DCA as a higher qualification in selections made during the
    years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2023 and 2024. He stated that this practice
    was consistently implemented by the KPSC even before issuance of
    the subject ranked list. He pointed out that this ‘equivalence’ principle
    had been applied to selections made for a variety of posts, such as
    Data Entry Operator, Typist Grade-II, Lower Division Clerk, Computer
    Operator and Confidential Assistant Grade-II. According to him, while
    finalizing the selections for the LDC posts, DCA/higher qualifications
    from institutions which were not recognized by the Government were
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         335

      Anoop M. and Others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others Etc.


     rejected. He furnished the list of unrecognized institutions and said
     that about 120 institutions, offering DCA/PGDCA, were recognized
     by the Government. He gave the names of fifteen such institutions.
     He concluded by stating that 590 applications from candidates with
     DCA/higher qualifications from unrecognized institutions had been
     rejected, on the one hand, but more than 175 applications from
     candidates with DCA/higher qualifications from recognized institutions
     had been accepted. Reference was made to internal correspondence
     dated 13.06.2017 in relation to the selections for the post of Data
     Entry Operator in District Cooperative Banks, wherein the higher
     qualifications, which were to be accepted in lieu of a Certificate in
     Data Entry, were furnished. Reference was also made to File No.
     DR V(1)1223/13/GW, pertaining to the above mentioned post of Data
     Entry Operator, adverting to the acceptability of 38 qualifications and
     8 experience certificates.
20. Notwithstanding this change in its approach, there is no getting
    over the fact that in the earlier round of this litigation, the KPSC
    was uncompromising in its refusal to consider DCA as an eligible
    qualification for appointment to the post of LDC in the Kerala Water
    Authority. So much so that it felt aggrieved by the direction of a learned
    Judge to the contrary and went to the extent of filing a review petition
    and also a writ appeal thereafter. The Memorandum of Grounds filed
    by the KPSC in the said writ appeal clearly demonstrated its adamant
    stand that DCA was not a qualification to be considered eligible for
    appointment to the subject post. It is apparent that the KPSC did a
    volte-face thereafter, be it for whatever reason, and now seeks to
    adopt a stand that DCA should be treated as a higher qualification
    which presupposes the lesser qualification of the prescribed Certificate
    in Data Entry and Office Automation.
21. However, no material has been placed before us 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. The qualification
    prescribed, being a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation
    from the named Institute or from a similar/equivalent government
    approved institution, it was necessary for the KPSC to ascertain the
    number of hours of actual data entry and office automation that is put
    in by a candidate who possesses the so-called higher qualification to
336                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       decide whether he/she can be treated as superior to a candidate with
       the prescribed qualification. Without undertaking this exercise, the
       KPSC cannot straightaway assume that, merely because the higher
       qualification is a Degree/Diploma in a computer-related subject, a
       candidate possessing the same would have more experience and
       expertise in data entry and office automation than a candidate with
       the prescribed Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation.
22. Useful reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this
    Court in Ajith K and others vs. Aneesh K.S. and others.1 That was
    also a case from the State of Kerala and involved the post of Junior
    Health Inspector Grade-II in Municipal Common Service. Minimum
    qualifications were prescribed for the post in the alternative. While
    so, candidates possessing a Diploma in Health Inspector Course,
    a two-year course which was not included in the prescribed
    qualifications, also aspired for selection. In this context, this Court
    considered whether the said Diploma could be treated as a higher
    qualification which presupposed acquisition of the prescribed lower
    qualification. Relevantly, the KPSC did not undertake any exercise to
    come to a sustainable finding that acquisition of the Diploma would
    presuppose acquisition of the prescribed lesser qualification, ultimately
    leading to this Court rejecting such a claim. Similar is the position
    presently as the KPSC, except for furnishing data of the institutions
    offering DCA that were treated as eligible due to Government
    recognition, did not undertake an independent assessment of the
    higher qualifications to determine whether candidates who possessed
    those qualifications would have put in equivalent or more number
    of hours in data entry and office automation than a candidate who
    underwent a three months course to obtain the prescribed Certificate
    in Data Entry and Office Automation.
23. The decision of this Court in Jyoti K.K. and others vs. Kerala
    Public Service Commission2 is distinguishable on facts, as that
    was a case where the higher qualification clearly presupposed
    acquisition of the lesser qualification. The prescribed qualification
    for the post in question in that case was a Diploma/Certificate in
    Electrical Engineering, whereas the higher qualifications which


1   [2019] 11 SCR 495 : (2019) 17 SCC 147
2   (2010) 15 SCC 596
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        337

       Anoop M. and Others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others Etc.


     were under consideration were B.Tech/B.E Degrees in Electrical
     Engineering. The same cannot be said to be the case presently, as
     every computer-related Degree/Diploma course cannot be assumed
     to impart similar experience or expertise in data entry and office
     automation as the prescribed Certificate course.
24. In Sheo Shyam vs. State of U.P.,3 this Court considered a recruitment
    process undertaken by the Union Public Service Commission.
    There was lack of consensus between the Commission and the
    State Government and the career of eleven candidates stood at
    risk owing to such inconsistent and varying stands adopted by
    the State Government and the Commission at different stages for
    different purposes. In this context, this Court observed that, though
    there cannot be any estoppel in law, yet a statutory body like the
    Commission could not blow hot and cold in the same breath, as there
    has to be consistency in its view. To rule out unfortunate situations
    like the one in that case recurring again, this Court cautioned the
    State Government and the Commission to be more vigilant and
    constructive in their approach. This Court observed that, when dealing
    with careers of a large number of candidates, their stands have to
    be consistent and not varied to avoid giving room for unsavoury
    suspicions and to ensure that the system works more transparently.
25. Presently also, it is manifest that it is the KPSC, with its vacillating
    and dithering stance, that is largely responsible for this long-pending
    litigation, impacting the lives, hopes and aspirations of nearly
    twelve hundred candidates. The KPSC, as already noted supra,
    was steadfast in its stand in the earlier round that DCA was not a
    qualification to be considered eligible for appointment to the subject
    post of LDC in the Kerala Water Authority. Thereafter, the change in
    its stance, without any foundational inquiry to determine the superiority
    of the so-called higher qualifications over the prescribed qualification,
    leaves this Court with no doubt that it was a purely whimsical and
    arbitrary exercise of discretion on its part without actual application
    of mind as per required parameters.
26. Recently, in Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala
    and others,4 a Constitution Bench held thus:


3   [2004] 2 SCR 406 : (2005) 10 SCC 314
4   [2017] 13 SCR 226 : (2024) 3 SCC 799
338                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


            ‘In a constitutional system rooted in the rule of law, the
            discretion available with public authorities is confined
            within clearly defined limits. The primary principle
            underpinning the concept of rule of law is consistency and
            predictability in decision-making. A decision of a public
            authority taken without any basis in principle or rule is
            unpredictable and is, therefore, arbitrary and antithetical
            to the rule of law. [S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, 1967
            SCC OnLine SC 6] The rule of law promotes fairness
            by stabilising the expectations of citizens from public
            authorities. This was also considered in a recent decision
            of this Court in SEBI v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan [SEBI v.
            Sunil Krishna Khaitan (2023) 2 SCC 643], wherein it was
            observed that regularity and predictability are hallmarks of
            good regulation and governance. [SEBI v. Sunil Krishna
            Khaitan (2023) 2 SCC 643] This Court held that certainty
            and consistency are important facets of fairness in action
            and non-arbitrariness: (Sunil Krishna Khaitan case, SCC
            pp 678-679, para 59)
            “59….. Any good regulatory system must promote and
            adhere to principle of certainty and consistency, providing
            assurance to the individual as to the consequences of
            transactions forming part of his daily affairs. ……. This
            does not mean that the regulator/ authorities cannot
            deviate from the past practice, albeit any such deviation
            or change must be predicated on greater public interest or
            harm. This is the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution
            of India which requires fairness in action by the State, and
            non-arbitrariness in essence and substance. Therefore,
            to examine the question of inconsistency, the analysis is
            to ascertain the need and functional value of the change,
            as consistency is a matter of operational effectiveness.” ’
       Earlier, in State of Bihar and others vs. Shyama Nandan Mishra,5
       this Court observed that the State cannot be allowed to change course
       and belie legitimate expectation as regularity, predictability, certainty
       and fairness are necessary concomitants of governmental action.


5   [2022] 11 SCR 1136 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 554
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        339

         Anoop M. and Others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and Others Etc.


27. We, therefore, have no hesitation in placing the blame for this entire
    imbroglio on the KPSC as it laid the genesis for this litigation owing 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. We can only hope that the Kerala Public
    Service Commission learns from this experience and desists, at
    least in future, from trifling with the lives, hopes and aspirations of
    candidates who seek public employment.
28. On the above analysis, we hold that no error was committed by
    the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in confirming the view
    taken by the learned Judge, non-suiting candidates with DCA/higher
    qualifications who aspired for selection to the post of Lower Division
    Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority.
     The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
     Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
     Parties shall bear their own costs.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain