Courts Cannot Declare Equivalence Of Qualification In Degrees — “It Is Not A Technical Matter”

CAUSE TITLE:

Shifana P.S. vs. The State of Kerala & Others

DATE OF ORDER:

06 August 2024

JUDGE(S):

Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta & Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli

PARTIES:

Petitioner: Shifana P.S.
Respondent: The State of Kerala & Others

SUBJECT:

The appellant, aggrieved by the non-selection in the KPSC final merit list, and after being dismissed in all her assailing attempts, has challenged the Judgement of the Tribunal in this appeal by special leave. 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Constitution of India, 1950

• Article 136 – Special Leave Petition

BRIEF FACTS:

• The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter being referred to as KPSC) is an important arm.
• The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereafter KPSC) advertised for the posts of High School Assistant (Physical Science) and the said notification was published on 30. 04. 2008. The appellant after having a graduation degree in B. Sc (Polymer Chemistry) and B. Ed (Physical Science) appeared in the written test on 10-10-2009 got qualified in the said test.
• It is worthy to note that, the KPSC invited the appellant vide letter dated 03rd October, 2011 for the interview requiring her to produce the equivalency certificate in confirmation with the commission that B. Sc (Polymer Chemistry) is equivalent to B. Sc (Chemistry).
• The appellant wants the Court to consider the fact that, according to a certificate which the University of Calicut had provided, B. Sc (Polymer Chemistry) provided by the said University be treated as equivalent to its B. Sc (Chemistry) in employment and in higher studies.
• The KPSC came out with the final merit list now. However, the appellant’s name was missing from it. The reasoning assigned for excluding the appellant’s name was that the High Court of Kerala in the case has held that the KPSC is absolutely without jurisdiction to entertain an application to claim ‘equivalence’ of any educational or other qualification referred to in the special rules that prevail in the state relating to dealings in the services. Proposing the relief of assessment of her scores to determine her rightful place, the appellant got annoyed at non-selection and filed.
• As per the direction that the respondents be commanded to include her name at the appropriate position in the final merit list as per the marks, she had written in the written test conducted by the KPSC. The original application preferred by the appellant was preferred under the said recruitment rules for appointment to the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) which came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 19th June, 2012, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as mandated under the recruitment rules.

QUESTIONS RAISED:

• Whether the judgement of the Tribunal was unlawful and arbitrary?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

1. The counsel for the appellant argued that the qualification of Chemistry was not same as the degree in B. Sc Chemistry demanded under the notification. The contentious adopted by the Tribunal in its order passed on 19th June, 2012 was that the appellant had not taken physics as one of the subsidiary subjects.
2. He encouraged that the said reasoning has no merit at all because the University of Calicut in its turn corroborated that it had confirmed the equivalency of B. Sc(Polymer Chemistry) obtained by the appellant with the degree of B. Sc(Chemistry) as advertised. More so, the appellant became qualified to sit for the interview considering his/her position in the final merit list. He thus urged that the finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court in a similar case was that where parties to a contract have agreed on the percentage to be charged as interest on the outstanding amount, then the amount so agreed is the amount which may be claimed by the party entitled to the interest.
3. The alleged order/judgment under appeal, which held that the appellant was not qualified to apply for the post, is unlawful, arbitrary and that the appellant deserves the relief sought by him. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent KPSC, brought to the notice of this Court the qualifying criteria that has been spelt out in the notification dated 03rd October, 2011 and submitted that the same categorically shows as to what has been expected of the person who desires to get appointment in the said post that he must possess a graduation degree in B. Sc(Chemistry).
• He argued that to say that there cannot be a going into of the question of equivalence cannot only be done to by the Commission but also the Court while exercising the power of Judicial review.
• The said domain is operational only for the experts/educational institutions vested in this regard. He submitted that the Division Bench of High Court has given irresistible logic for not granting any relief to the appellant and hence the present appeal should be dismissed.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:

• At the outset, It is unequivocally established that the specified qualifying criteria for the position advertised in the notification dated April 30, 2008, required a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry degree. It is acknowledged that the appellant does not possess such a degree. However, the appellant argues that her Bachelor of Science in Polymer Chemistry degree should be considered equivalent to a degree in Chemistry. This argument, however, is flawed and misconceived.
• In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, the Court clarified that judicial review does not have the authority to expand the scope of prescribed qualifications or to determine the equivalence of such qualifications with other qualifications. Consequently, the determination of qualification equivalence falls within the purview of the State, as the entity responsible for recruitment.
• Furthermore, in a subsequent case, the Court reiterated that the concept of equivalence is a technical matter of academic standing, and it cannot be inferred or assumed. Any decision regarding the equivalence of qualifications by the academic body of a university must be made in the form of a specific order or resolution, which should be duly published. The appellant's claim that the University of Calicut issued a certificate on October 10, 2011, recognizing the equivalence of the Polymer Chemistry course to the Chemistry course, is not supported by the Court's previous rulings.
• Given the established legal principles derived from these precedents, it is firmly believed that the appellant did not meet the qualifications for the position advertised on April 30, 2008. Consequently, there is no valid reason to intervene in the judgment issued on October 16, 2012, by the High Court. The appellant's appeal was therefore dismissed due to its lack of merit.