Public Service Commission Cannot Shift Stance on Qualification Criteria Arbitrarily – Kerala High Court in LDC Recruitment Case

"Higher Qualification Does Not Automatically Mean Eligibility" – Kerala High Court Slams KPSC for Inconsistent Recruitment Policies. The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) cannot arbitrarily exclude candidates from selection lists without conducting a proper inquiry into the equivalency of their qualifications. In a strongly worded judgment, Justice D.K. Singh dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the exclusion of candidates from the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) selection list in the Kerala Water Authority, stating, “The Public Service Commission, being a constitutional body, must maintain consistency and transparency in its selection process. Its decisions must be based on clear and objective standards, not shifting interpretations of eligibility criteria.”

The case stemmed from the 2012 recruitment notification (Category No. 345/2012) for 102 existing vacancies and 43 anticipated vacancies in the Kerala Water Authority. The eligibility criteria prescribed a Degree in any discipline and a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation from specified institutions such as Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science and Technology (LBS), Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD), or any “similar/equivalent institution approved by the Government.”

Candidates possessing alternative qualifications, including Diplomas in Computer Applications (DCA), certifications from C-DIT, SCERT, Akshaya E-Centres, and Electronics Corporation of India, were allowed to participate in the selection process. However, in a controversial move, the KPSC later excluded such candidates from the final rank list published on January 29, 2025, leading to multiple writ petitions before the High Court.

"KPSC Cannot Adopt a Contradictory Stand on Qualification Equivalency" – Court Questions Transparency in Selection Process
Justice D.K. Singh strongly criticized the KPSC’s shifting stance, observing that the selection body had initially considered candidates with higher qualifications, such as DCA, only to later exclude them without any proper review of equivalency. The court stated, “A constitutional body responsible for public employment must adhere to uniform and objective standards. It cannot take contradictory stands that unfairly impact the rights of candidates.”

The petitioners argued that their exclusion was arbitrary, as the KPSC had previously accepted higher qualifications as sufficient for meeting the eligibility criteria. The court found merit in this argument, ruling that KPSC’s failure to conduct an expert assessment on whether higher qualifications inherently include lower-level skills had caused unnecessary confusion and litigation.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anoop M v. Gireeshkumar T M [(2025) 1 SCC 729], the court emphasized, “The PSC’s refusal to recognize alternative qualifications cannot be arbitrary. It must be backed by a proper academic or expert evaluation.”

"A Diploma in Computer Applications is Not Automatically Equivalent to Data Entry Certification" – Court Upholds Strict Adherence to Notified Qualifications
The High Court firmly rejected the argument that a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) should be automatically considered equivalent to the prescribed Data Entry and Office Automation certification. The judgment stated, “A higher qualification does not necessarily imply that a candidate possesses the specific skills required for a lower qualification. The PSC cannot make such presumptions without conducting an academic assessment.”

The Supreme Court had earlier clarified that equivalency applied only to the institutions issuing Data Entry and Office Automation certificates, not to alternative courses. The Kerala High Court upheld this position, stating, “Candidates must demonstrate that they obtained their certification from a government-approved equivalent institution. The burden of proving equivalency lies with the PSC, which must act on the basis of expert recommendations, not assumptions.”

"PSC Cannot Remove Candidates Without a Proper Verification Process" – Court Orders Fresh Review of Exclusion Decisions
A major concern raised by the petitioners was KPSC’s decision to exclude candidates without verifying whether their institutions were government-approved equivalents. The court ruled that the exclusion was legally unsustainable because no independent verification was conducted.

Justice D.K. Singh observed, “Before deleting candidates from the selection list, the PSC was duty-bound to examine whether the institutions that issued their certificates were government-approved as ‘similar/equivalent.’ Failure to conduct such an inquiry renders the exclusion arbitrary and unsustainable.”

The court directed the KPSC to re-evaluate the eligibility of the petitioners within one month, specifically reviewing whether their certifications met the institutional equivalency standard.

"Recruitment Authorities Must Act Fairly, or Risk Losing Public Trust" – Court’s Final Observations on PSC’s Conduct
In a stern rebuke to the KPSC’s handling of the selection process, the High Court emphasized that recruitment authorities must act in a manner that upholds public confidence in the fairness of government employment procedures. The judgment noted, “A state instrumentality entrusted with making selections to public service must maintain a high standard of probity and transparency. It cannot remain ambiguous about eligibility criteria or make arbitrary exclusions after initial acceptance.”

The court’s direction to conduct a fresh institutional equivalency review within one month serves as a strong precedent against arbitrary exclusions in public employment recruitment. The ruling reinforces that a selection body cannot shift its stance on qualification criteria without proper reasoning and expert assessment.
 

Date of Decision: 07 March 2025