Only PSC and Personnel Department Can Decide Eligibility—Orders by Other Departments Have No Legal Force: Kerala High Court

“Equivalence of Qualification Must Be Declared by Competent Authority Before Recruitment Begins”— Kerala High Court decisively ruled that only the Public Service Commission and the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (P&ARD) can determine whether a higher qualification presupposes the lower one prescribed in service rules. In a landmark decision in Saranya P.K. & Others v. Vyshak P. & Others, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan set aside two judgments that had previously allowed Diploma and B.Tech holders in Civil Engineering to compete for the post of Surveyor Grade II in the Kerala Water Authority.

Allowing Writ Appeals 630, 742 and 865 of 2025, the Court declared, “Orders issued by departments other than the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department are merely recommendatory and cannot confer eligibility under Rule 10(a)(ii) of the KS&SSR.” It further emphasized that “The sufficiency of a qualification must be determined by the competent authorities and must exist prior to the issuance of the recruitment notification.”

Higher Education Department Has No Authority to Declare Qualification Sufficiency Under Rule 10(a)(ii)

The case concerned a recruitment notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 30 December 2023 for the post of Surveyor Grade II. The notification clearly prescribed National Trade Certificate (NTC) in Surveying or equivalent KGTE-level technical qualifications. Certain candidates holding Diploma and B.Tech degrees in Civil Engineering filed writ petitions claiming that their qualifications “presupposed” the lower NTC qualification, relying on Government Orders (Exts. P4 to P6) issued by the Higher Education Department.

But the Court categorically rejected the use of such orders as the basis for eligibility, ruling: “Exts.P4 to P6 are not issued by the competent authority under the Rules. They cannot override the qualification criteria laid down in the Special Rules or recruitment notification.”

The Bench relied heavily on the principles settled in Kerala PSC v. Krishnaprasad P.S., 2025 (6) KHC 189, and reaffirmed that “It is only the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department that is empowered to determine whether a higher qualification satisfies the Rule 10(a)(ii) test.”

The Court noted that these orders were passed “on the basis of individual representations, and not in consultation with the competent authorities or based on an analysis of the Special Rules.”

Eligibility Cannot Be Claimed on Moral or Equitable Grounds When Special Rules Prevail

The judgment underscored that judicial review in recruitment matters is narrowly circumscribed. The Division Bench applied the legal test laid down by the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala PSC, holding that unless a qualification has been officially declared as equivalent before the issuance of a recruitment notification, it cannot be retrospectively treated as sufficient.

“Any decision of the PSC or the Government cannot normally apply retrospectively to have an impact on the ongoing selection process,” the Court reiterated, rejecting the contention that B.Tech or Diploma degrees automatically include the knowledge required for NTC in Surveying.

In strong words, the Court remarked: “There are no materials to show that Diploma or B.Tech in Civil Engineering is a prescribed qualification for direct entry to the post of Surveyor Grade II. The government orders in question cannot be used to bypass the clear terms of the notification.”

Notification Prescribes the Law—PSC is Not Bound by Unsupported Executive Orders

Refusing to allow the writ petitioners to rely on Exts.P4 to P6, the Court emphasized that the PSC is not bound by unsupported declarations made by departments lacking authority. The Division Bench noted: “While the Higher Education Department may offer academic views, it cannot declare eligibility under service rules.”

In conclusion, the High Court observed that “Permitting such departmental orders to override prescribed qualifications would violate the constitutional mandate of fair and transparent recruitment.”

Setting aside the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 2159 and 12312 of 2025, the Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the KPSC's rejection of the petitioners' applications.

Date of Decision: 03 December 2025