PRAVEEN KUMAR C.P versus KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

PRAVEEN KUMAR C.P

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.*(Civil Appeal No. 4846 of 2021)

AUGUST 17, 2021

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]

Service Law –Appointment –Equivalency of degrees –Principle of “change in the rules of the game midway” – When notapplicable – Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 –Clause 10 (a)(ii), 13 –Appointment to the posts of High SchoolAssistants in the State of Kerala by Kerala Public Service Commission(KPSC)– Employment notifications stipulated B.Ed in concernedsubject as eligibility criteria–Appellants had B.Ed degrees fromoutside Kerala though not in the concerned subjects – Objectionraised –Subsequently, two Universities of the State of Kerala certifiedthe appellants’ B.Ed. degrees to have equivalent status which wasfollowed by Government Orders (GOs) conferring on the subjectsin which the appellants obtained B.Ed. degrees, equivalency to therequired subjects–On the basis of the GOs, Tribunal allowed thepetitions filed by the appellants and directed KPSC to include theirnames in the ranked list – Orders set aside by High Court–On appeal,held:GOs treated the equivalency to be operating on the dates ofobtaining B.Ed. degrees–Subject GOs only recognised an existingstate of affairs so far as the nature of the degrees were concernedand did not create fresh value for the degrees which the appellantspossessed– The GOs were not general orders but were personspecific,relating to the two appellants and in substance will have tobe interpreted as clarificatory in nature –Treating the appellants’degrees as equivalent to those required under the applicablenotifications by the GOs issued subsequently would not change therules of the game midway –Appellants possessed equivalentqualifications when they applied for the posts –Impugned judgmentsset aside – Orders of the Tribunal restored – Kerala Education Rules,1959 – Chapter XXXI – Clause 2(2)(a).

Service Law –Objection to eligibility criteria–KeralaEducation Rules, 1959 – Chapter XXXI – Clause 2(2)(a)– Legality

Aof introducing specific subjects in B.Ed. as qualifying criteria forthe posts of High School Assistants challenged by appellants –Held:Said Clause postulates B.Ed. degree simplicitor as the eligibilitycriteria–Further, no specific notification/order issued by KPSC hasbeen brought on record under which the eligibility criteria of holdingB.Ed. Degree had to be in the concerned subject for the posts inBquestion– However, appellants having participated in the saidselection process without raising any objection, cannot questionthe eligibility criteria specified in the employment notification –Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Clause 13.

Words & Phrases – ‘equivalence’ – Meaning of – Discussed.CAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1 On plain reading of the Clause 2(2)(a)ofChapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, it is apparentthat no specific subject in B.Ed. has been made to be theDqualifying criteria. The graduation requirement in concernedsubject is there, but going by the said Clause, it postulates B.Ed.degree simplicitor as the eligibility criteria. So far as the presentappellants are concerned, no dispute has been raised over theirgraduation being in the concerned subject. Clause 13 of the KeralaState and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 permits theECommission to prescribe special qualifications in cases whereappointments have to be made in consultation with it or by theState Government or by an appointing authority with approval ofState Government in other cases. No specific notification or orderissued by the KPSC has been brought to Court’s notice underFwhich the eligibility criteria of holding B.Ed. Degree had to be inthe concerned subject for the posts of High School Assistants.But, the appellants cannot take aid of this argument as therespective employment notifications had specified B.Ed. inconcerned subject. The appellants having participated in the saidselection process without raising any objection on that count, itGwould not be open to them to question the eligibility criteriaspecified in the employment notification. Thus, the case isproceeded on the basis that the candidates for the posts inquestion were required to have B.Ed. degree in the concernedsubject. [Paras 16, 18][952-G-H; 953-A-B; 954-A-C]

1.2 The power of the State Government to make orders onthe question of equivalence is not in dispute. Such power, interalia, stems from Clause 10(a) (ii) of 1958 Rules. In the two GOsit has been specified that the respective B.Ed. degrees of theappellants through regular study were equivalent to B.Ed. degreein Natural Science. In the case of PK, his B.Ed. Degree inBiological Science was recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. NaturalScience Degree of Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. In thecase of AD, the GO stipulated that Double Main B.Ed. (BiologicalScience Education and Physical Science Education) degreeobtained by her through regular mode was recognized asequivalent to B.Ed. Natural Science Degree of University ofCalicut. plain reading of the two GOs clearly reflect that theirdegrees were equivalent to the requisite qualifications containedin the eligibility criteria. The word “equivalence” in its plainmeaning implies something which is equal to another. In the fieldof academics, application of the principle of equivalency in relationto degrees in two subjects would mean that they had the samestanding or status all along, unless the official instrumentaccording equivalency specifies date from which the respectivesubjects would be treated as such, in express terms or byimplication. [Paras 22, 25 and 26][955-D-E; 957-D-F; 958-B-D]

Zonal Manager, Zonal Officer, Bank of India Kochi &Ors. v. Aarya K Babu &Anr. (2019) 8 SCC 587 : [2019]11 SCR 627 – distinguished.

A. Suma v. The Kerala Public Service Commission &Ors. (2011) 1 KLT1 (FB); Beena R. v. Kerala PublicService Commission and Ors. (2017) 15 SCC 306 :[2017] 6 SCR 510 – held inapplicable.

T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu (2008) 9 SCC 403 : [2008]13 SCR 791 – referred to.

1.3 Whether GO would have prospective effect or relateback to an earlier date is question which would have to bedecided on the basis of text and tenor of the respective orders.The GOs which declared appellants’ degrees to be equivalent tothose required as per the applicable notifications were not general

Aorders but these two orders were person specific, relating to thetwo appellants. Once the GOs specifically declared that their B.Ed.degrees were equivalent to the designated subject which formedpart of the employment notification, the GOs in substance haveto be interpreted as clarificatory in nature and these cannot beconstrued to have had elevated the status or position of theBdegree they already had after the declaration was made in theGOs. The subject GOs only recognised an existing state of affairsso far as the nature of the degrees were concerned and did notcreate fresh value for the degrees which the appellants possessed.Though these equivalent orders were not in existence on theCdates of issue of employment notifications, the GOs in substancerecognize such status from the dates of obtaining such degrees.The GOs do not reveal any intervening circumstances which couldbe construed to imply that the respective degrees acquired theequivalent status because of such circumstances occurringsubsequent to grant of their B.Ed. degrees. The Notes to ClauseD7 of the employment notifications postulated disclosure of thenumber and date of the orders on equivalence. But the GOstreated the equivalency to be operating on the dates of obtainingsuch degrees. Thus, the defect, if any, on disclosure requirement,shall stand cured on issue of the University orders followed byEthe GOs. Treating the appellants’ degrees as equivalent to thoserequired under the applicable notifications by the GOs issued inthe year 2019 would not result in change in the rules of the gamemidway. The appellants’ degrees in B.Ed. were equivalent to thoserequired by the employment notifications and the equivalencyorders were merely clarificatory in nature. Thus, there was noFfundamental breach of Notes (v) and (vi) of Clause 7 of therespective employment notifications in the cases of the appellants.The appellants possessed equivalent qualifications when theyapplied for the posts. The judgments under appeal are set asideand the orders of the Tribunal are restored. [Paras 27-29][958-GE-H; 959-A-B, F; 960-A]

P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411: [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 385; Prafulla Kumar Swain v.Prakash Chandra Mishra &Ors. 1993 Supp (3) SCC181 : [1993] 1 SCR 241; Secretary, A.P. Public Service

Commission v. B. Swapna & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 154 :[2005] 2 SCR 991; Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v.State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 484 : [2015] 3SCR 729 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4846of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2019 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in OP(KAT) No.518 of 2019.

With

Civil Appeal No.4847 of 2021

Sarath S Janardanan, Ms. Vishnupriya P Govind, Abid Ali BeeranP, Advs. for the appellant.

Vipin Nair, P. B. Suresh, Karthik Jayashankar, Arindam Ghosh,Anshuman Bahadur, Sanal C. Nambiar, C. K. Sasi, Advs. for therespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

1. Leave granted in both the petitions.

2. The controversy involved in these proceedings relates to theissue as to whether the appellants possessed the eligibility criteria forappointment to the post of High School Assistants in the State of Kerala.The main dispute is over the question as to whether the appellants’ B.Ed.degrees were in the subjects fulfilling the eligibility criteria. This is thecommon question involved in both the appeals and we shall deal with

Athis controversy in composite manner in this judgment. There are somevariations in the factual basis of the claims of both the appellants and weshall refer first to that aspect separately for each of the appellants.

3. In the appeal originating in the Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 4604 of 2020, the appellant is one Praveen Kumar C.P. We shallBrefer to him henceforth as PK. The selection process for the post wasinitiated by an employment notification dated 31[st] December, 2012, issuedby the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). PK had applied forthe said post in Natural Science. The notification was for appointment inMalayalam medium institutions in all the fourteen districts of the State ofKerala. The requisite academic qualification for the post for which PKChad applied was stipulated Clause 7 of the said employment notification.This Clause read:-

“7. Qualification:-

degree in the concerned subject and B.Ed/BT in the concernedDsubject conferred or recognized by the University in Kerala(Concerned subjects are specified in Note (ii) below)

Note:- (i) Diploma in Rural Service awarded by the national Councilfor Rural High Education will be treated as equivalent to degreefor the above purpose.

E(ii) The applicants should have taken Botany or Zoology or HomeScience or Micro Biology as Main subjects for graduation or postgraduation.

(iii) Question papers for written test if any will be in Malayalam,The candidates should answer the questions in Malyalam.F(iv) The disciplines in Degree and B.Ed Degree were obtainedshould be mentioned in brackets in the application form.

(v) Those candidates who secured B.Ed/B.T Degree from theUniversities outside Kerala should note in the application form,the number and date of relevant orders declaring the said degreeGas equivalent to those prescribed for this selection. The copies ofsuch order shall be produced before the commission when it iscalled for.”

4. PK had obtained B.Ed. Degree in Biological Science from theUniversity of Mysore, the course which he pursued in RamakrishnaH

Institute of Moral and Spiritual Education, Yadavgiri, Mysuru. TheUniversity from which PK obtained B.Ed. Degree stood recognized byUniversity of Calicut, as would be apparent from Annexure P-10 to thepetition for special leave to appeal. This certificate stipulates:-

“UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

Sl.No.24619

Calicut University P.O 673635Dated 05 Jul 2018

No.EQ/30123/2018

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the B.Ed (Biological Science) Degree of theUniversity of Mysore after regular study has been recognized asequivalent to the B.Ed Natural Science Degree of this University.

For Registrar

Issued to :

Sri :- Praveen Kumar C.P.

Note : This is general certificate and the original certificate ofthe individual concerned has not been verified in this office whileissuing this. The eligibility and the mode of study will be verifiedby the Admitting Authority.”

5. PK’s certificate for B.Ed. degree did not specify the individualsubjects which formed part of his curriculum but in document captioned“Study Certificate” dated 12[th] December, 2019 issued by the institutefrom which he pursued the B.Ed. course, it has been specified he hadpassed B.Ed. Degree examination conducted by the University ofMysore, Mysuru and his subjects in the B.Ed. were Content-cum-Methodology 1-Biology and Content-cum-Methodology 2-Chemistry-(Biological Science). This certificate was issued during pendency of thedispute in the High Court of Kerala.

6. In the Appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 3927 of 2021, the petitioner is one P. Anitha Devi. We shall refer toher later in this judgment as AD.The selection process in her case wasinitiated by similar employment notification dated 15[th] March, 2014 bythe KPSC. The subject-post was the same, i.e. High School Assistant(Natural Science) but the category of schools for which this notification

Awas issued was Tamil medium institutions in the district of Palakkad andIdukki. The relevant Clause pertaining to the qualification criteria of thecandidates in this notification was also Clause 7 and the stipulationstherein were broadly similar to that contained in the employmentnotification dated 31[st] December, 2012. The said Clause in the notificationdated 15[th] March, 2014 specified: -B

“7. Qualifications: -

degree of Postgraduate degree in the concerned subject andB.Ed/BT in the concerned subject conferred or recognised by theUniversities in Kerala (Concerned subjects are specified in Note(ii) below) Note:-

(i) Diploma in Rural Service awarded by the National Councilfor Rural Higher Education will be treated as equivalent toDegree for the above purpose.

(ii) The applicants should have taken Botany or Zoology orHome Science or Micro Biology as Main subject for graduationor post graduation.

(iii) Post title degree holders are not eligible to apply for thepost of HSA.

(iv) Candidates applying for this post should have sufficientknowledge in Tamil. Question papers for written test/OMRtest if any will be in Tamil. The candidates should answer thequestions in Tamil.

(v) The disciplines in which Degree and B.Ed degree wereobtained should be mentioned in brackets in the applicationFform.

(vi) Those candidates who secured B.Ed/B.T. Degree fromthe Universities outside Kerala should note in the applicationform, the number and date of relevant orders declaring thesaid degree as equivalent to those prescribed for this selection.The copies of such order shall be produced before thecommission when it is called for.”

7. AD had obtained B.Ed. Degree in Biological Science andPhysical Science from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.The said degree was also recognized by the University of Calicut in theH

State of Kerala and certificate to that effect was issued on 31[st] October,2017. This would be evident from Annexure P-4 to her petition. Thiscertificate read:-

“UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

Sl.No.20414Calicut University P.O.-673635

No.EQ/26497/2017Dated 31[st] October 2017

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the B.Ed Degree of the Bharathiar UniversityCoimbatore after regular study has been recognized as equivalentto the B.Ed Degree of this University.

(Office Seal)

For Registrar

Smt. Anitha Devi P.

Note: This is general certificate and the original certificate ofthe individual concerned has not been verified in this office whileissuing this. The eligibility and the mode of study will be verifiedby the Admitting Authority.”

8. Both of them had participated in the selection process and wereincluded in the “main list”, which in substance signified their success inthe written test. But question arose as to whether their B.Ed. degreeswere in subjects equivalent to the “concerned subject” which wasstipulated in the employment notification. What would constituteconcerned subject has been stipulated in Note (ii) of Clause 7 of boththe employment notifications and neither of them possessed B.Ed. degreein the subjects stipulated to be concerned in the said Clause.

9. As none of the appellants had B.Ed. degree in Natural Science,at the time of verification of the documents of PK after publication ofthe written test results, objection was raised in his case for not havingB.Ed. in the “concerned subject”. He was given time to produce theGovernment Order regarding acceptance of his qualification. In the caseof AD also, similar objection was raised. PK had asked for extension oftime, which was denied, as submitted by his learned counsel. In case ofAD, she along with certain other candidates had approached the Kerala

AAdministrative Tribunal by filing an application (O.A. (EKM) No. 346of 2018), inter-alia, claiming that she had the requisite qualification. Aninterim order was passed on 20[th] February, 2018 by the Tribunal permittingher to participate in the interview, subject to final outcome of her petition.PK also had approached the Tribunal with an application [O.A. (EKM)No. 257 of 2018] and an order was passed by the Tribunal on 30[th] January,B2018 permitting him to take part in the interview subject to further orderin his case. On the basis of these orders, they participated in the interview.Thereafter, the ranked lists were published but the results of both theappellants were shown to have had been withheld. PK again approachedthe Tribunal with an Original Application registered as O.A. No. 1525 ofC2019 challenging the decision of the authorities in not accepting his B.Ed.Degree, the subject of which he has termed as “Double Option”. Duringpendency of their cases before the Tribunal, the Department of HigherEducation, Government of Kerala had issued two Government Orders(GOs) which broadly sustained the claim of the appellants of havingdegrees equivalent to that of the concerned subject. In the case of PK,Dthe Government Order dated 7[th] March, 2019 stipulated:-

“HIGHER EDUCATION (B) DEPARTMENT

G.O. (...) No. 54/2019/H Edn.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM07/03/2019EReference:- 1. Request submitted by Sri. Praveenkumar CP on06.08.2018.

2. Letter No. ACD/03/Reg-1143/REC/18 dated 24.09.2018 ofRegistrar, Mahatma Gandhi University.

FORDER

Praveenkumar CP who was included in the list of the KeralaPublic Service Commission had requested that GovernmentOrder be given stating that Ed. degree in Biological Scienceobtained from University of Mysore is equivalent to Ed. DegreeGin Natural Science, as per reference No. 1.

Government has considered the issue in detail on the basis of thereport of the Registrar of Mahatma Gandhi University as perreference No. 2 which accepted that B. Ed. degree through regularstudy obtained from University of Mysore is equivalent to B.Ed.

degree in Natural Science from Mahatma Gandhi University. It ishereby ordered that B.Ed. degree in Biological Science obtainedthrough regular study from University of Mysore is equivalent toB.Ed. Degree in Natural Science obtained from Mahatma GandhiUniversity.

(As per Order of Governor)B

SWAPNA. P

Under Secretary

Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission,Thiruvananthapuram

Registrar- Kerala/M.G./Kannur/Calicut Universities Sri.Praveen Kumar CP, Cheriyaputhukulangara House, Iringath

PO, Kozhikode-673523, Office Copywww.highereducation.kerala.gov.in

DAs per Order

Section Officer”

10. In the case of AD, similar order dated 23[rd] July, 2019 wasissued. This GO also covered the case of another candidate Smt.Mafferith. The said order provided:-

“Higher Education (B) Department

G.O.(….) No.254/2019/H.Edn. Dated, Thiruvanathapuram, 23/07/2019

Reference: 1. Application submitted by Smt. Mafferith, Anithadevi

2. Letter No. 103542/EQ&MG SO/2019/Admn. dated 28.06.19of the Registrar, University of Calicut.

ORDER

Smt. Mafferith, Smt. Anithadevi, who passed the exam conductedby Kerala Public Service Commission had submitted applicationas per Reference (1) to pass an Order recognizing equivalence ofDouble Main B.Ed (Biological Science Education & PhysicalScience Education), Double Main B.Ed (Biological Science

AEducation & English Education) degrees obtained from BharathiarUniversity through regular mode to B.Ed Natural Science degreeof University of Calicut. The University of Calicut vide Reference(2) informed that Double Main B.Ed (Biological Science Education& Physical Science Education), Double Main B.Ed (BiologicalScience Education & English Education) degrees obtained fromBBharathiar University through regular mode has been recognisedequivalent as B.Ed Natural Science degree of University of Calicut.

In the said circumstances, it is hereby ordered that DoubleMain B.Ed (Biological Science Education & Physical ScienceEducation), Double Main B.Ed (Biological Science Education &CEnglish Education) degrees obtained from Bharathiar Universitythrough regular mode is recognized equivalent to B.Ed. NaturalScience degree of University of Calicut.

(As per the Order of Governor)

SWAPNA P

Under Secretary”

11. On the basis of these GOs, the Tribunal allowed both thepetitions and directed KPSC to include the appellants’ names in the rankedlist. In PK’s case, the order was passed by the Tribunal on 20[th] September,E2019 whereas the decision in AD’s petition was delivered on 2[nd]September, 2019.

12. The KPSC assailed the Tribunal’s orders before the HighCourt of Kerala. Their stand before the High Court was that equivalencyought to operate from the dates of issue of the respective GOs and theFsaid GOs could not be given retrospective effect. This argument wassustained by the High Court. In the case of PK, it was inter-alia held bythe High Court in OP (KAT) No. 518 of 2019:-

“The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC alsocontends that the equivalency issued is after the notification and itGcould apply only for future selections. Reliance is also placed ontwo decisions of this Court in Lalitha Bai v. Public ServiceCommission [1999 (2) KLT 894 and Rajasree v. State of Kerala[2009 (1) KLT 259]. We accept the contention, especially noticingthe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zonal Manager,Bank of India & Others v. Aarya K. Babu and Another [(2019) 8

SCC 587]. Therein the candidate did not have the qualificationspecified in the notification, but on the basis of equivalency, thisCourt allowed the candidate to be continued in the post to thewhich she was appointed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecatedthe practice of the High Court granting equivalency andcategorically held that the equivalency had to be specified in thenotification. The reasoning was also that there would have beenmany other candidates with the very same qualification, who wouldnot have applied in the belief that the said qualification is not oneprescribed in the notification.

For all the above reasons, we do not agree with the Tribunal andwe allow the original petition setting aside the order of the Tribunal.Parties shall suffer their respective costs.”

(quoted verbatim)

13. KPSC’s petition before the High Court, registered as OP (KAT)No. 465 of 2019 against the Tribunal order in respect of AD was alsosustained on similar grounds and the orders of the Tribunal were setaside in both their cases. In PK’s case, the judgment was delivered on18[th] December, 2019 whereas KPSC’s petition against the Tribunaljudgment in AD’s case was rendered on 12[th] March, 2020.

14. The broad reasoning of the High Court in both the aforesaidjudgments was that the GOs could not be relied upon by the appellantsas these were issued subsequent to the employment notifications and onconclusion of the selection processes. Opinion of the High Court wasthat the acceptance of the Government Orders with retrospective effectwould amount to change in the rule of the game mid-way, which isimpermissible. The appellants have assailed legality of these judgmentsbefore us. Their main argument is that the GOs only recognised asubsisting position as regards status of their respective educationalqualifications and confirmation of the equivalency of their B.Ed. subjectsby the respective GOs met the eligibility requirement. It has also beensubmitted on behalf of the appellants that the rejection of the GOs issuedrecognizing their subsisting degrees as equivalent to that specified onthe ground that they could not be treated to have retrospective operationwould not apply in the facts of their cases.

15. The authorities which have been cited before us on behalf ofrespondents, in support of the two judgments of the High Court are (i) P.

AMahendran v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 411], (ii) PrafullaKumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors. [1993 Supp (3)SCC 181], (iii) Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B.Swapna & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 154], (iv) Prakash Chand Meena& Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 484] and (v)Zonal Manager, Zonal Officer, Bank of India Kochi & Ors. v.BAarya K Babu & Anr. [(2019) 8 SCC 587]. These decisions aremainly authorities on the point that the Rules prevailing on the date ofissue of employment notifications ought to prevail under normalcircumstances and new Rules or amendments coming midway througha selection process cannot be applied to that process. Such new RulesCwould operate prospectively. Certain judgments of the Kerala High Courthave also been relied upon by the KPSC on the same proposition of law.But we do not consider it necessary to multiply the authorities in thisjudgment on the same point.16. Before us, argument has also been advanced by the learnedDcounsel for the appellants on legality of introducing specific subjects inB.Ed. as qualifying criteria for the posts in question. Our attention in thisregard has been drawn to Clause 2(2)(a) of Chapter XXXI of the KeralaEducation Rules, 1959. The said Clause lays down that “A Degree inconcerned subject and B.Ed./ B.T./L.T conferred or recognized by theUniversities of Kerala” as qualification of High School Assistant in aEparticular subject. According to the appellants, there is no provision forrequiring candidate having B.Ed. in concerned subject under the saidRules. The heading of that chapter specifies that these are “Qualificationsof Private School Teachers”. But in their written submissions, the Stategovernment has referred to the same Rules to be applicable in theFappellants’ cases as well. The appellants were seeking employment inthe State educational sector. The State wants us to give strainedinterpretation to the said Rules treating the same to be applicable for thesubject-posts, which are in State institutions and simultaneously read thewords “concerned subject” in relation to B.Ed. Degree also. This

argument of the State is advanced on the ground that it would be in theGinterest of maintaining quality of education. But on plain reading of thesaid clause, it is apparent that there is no specific subject in B.Ed. hasbeen made to be the qualifying criteria in Clause 2(2)(a) of ChapterXXXI of the 1959 Rules. The graduation requirement in concerned subjectis there, but going by the said Clause, it postulates B.Ed. degree simplicitorHas the eligibility criteria. No other Rule has been shown to us by the

learned counsel for the State of Kerala or the Commission from which itcan be inferred that there was requirement of candidate for the subjectposts to hold B.Ed. degree in the concerned subject. So far as the presentappellants are concerned, no dispute has been raised over their graduationbeing in the concerned subject.

17. On behalf of KPSC, it has been contended that it was withintheir power to stipulate qualification beyond that what is specified inaforesaid Clause 2(2)(a) and they have relied on Kerala State andSubordinate Services Rules, 1958 to establish that they had power to doso. The said Rules lay down various aspects of recruitment and conditionsof service in the State of Kerala and Rule 10 thereof deals withqualification requirements for post in State and Subordinate Services.The Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 have been framedunder Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The relevant provisions ofClause 10 thereof provide:-

“10. Qualifications. (a) (i) The educational or other qualifications,if any, required for post shall be as specified in the Special Rulesapplicable to the service in which that post is included or asspecified in the executive orders of Government in cases whereSpecial Rules have not been issued for the post/service.

(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in theSpecial Rules, the qualifications recognized by executive ordersor standing orders of Government as equivalent to qualificationspecified for post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable bythe Commission as per rule 13 (b) (i) of the said rules in caseswhere acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for inthe rules and such of those qualifications which pre- suppose theacquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shallalso be sufficient for the post.”18. Clause 13 of the 1958 Rules permits the Commission toprescribe special qualifications in cases where appointments have to bemade in consultation with it or by the State Government or by an appointingauthority with approval of State Government in other cases. No specificnotification or order issued by the KPSC has been brought to our noticeunder which the eligibility criteria of holding B.Ed. Degree had to be inthe concerned subject for the posts of High School Assistants. KPSC’ssubmission on this point is that the same was not raised at any earlier

Astage of the proceeding. But in our opinion, the appellants cannot takeaid of this argument as the respective employment notifications hadspecified B.Ed. in concerned subject. The appellants having participatedin the said selection process without raising any objection on that count,it would not be open to them to question the eligibility criteria specified inthe employment notification. We shall, thus, proceed on the basis thatBthe candidates for the posts in question were required to have B.Ed.degree in the concerned subject and it is not in dispute that B.Ed. degreesof the appellants were not in the concerned subjects. The two GOs,however, confer on the subjects in which the appellants obtained B.Ed.degrees, equivalency to the required subjects.C

19. There is support for adoption of principle of equivalency inClause 10 (a)(ii) of the 1958 Rules. The appellants’ case is also thattheir B.Ed. degrees should have been accepted as their subjects in therespective degree courses were equivalent to the designated subjects,as was stipulated in the employment notifications.D

20. We shall now turn to the question as to whether the two GOsdated 07[th] March, 2019 and 23[rd] July, 2019 could apply in the cases ofthe appellants for consideration of the equivalent status of their degreesin B.Ed., the employment notifications having been published in the years2012 and 2014. In that perspective, will consideration of their degrees inEB.Ed. in the light of the aforesaid two GOs result in changing the rulesof the game mid-way?

21. Before we address that question, we shall refer to Note (v)and Note (vi) of Clause 7 of the respective employment notificationsconcerning PK and AD respectively. We have reproduced the saidFClauses earlier in this judgment. There was requirement in Clause 7 thatthe candidates ought to disclose the dates of GOs declaring equivalencyto the concerned subjects. But neither the KPSC nor the State has arguedbefore us that there was any defect in the appellants’ applications. Theywere permitted to participate in the written test. On this count, therespondents have relied on judgment of this Court in the case of T.GJayakumar v. A. Gopu [(2008) 9 SCC 403] to contend that oversighton the part of the authorities at the stage of processing applicationswould not be treated to be condonation of some fatal defect in suchapplications. Next requirement, as per said Clause 7 was production ofsuch Orders before the Commission when the same was called for. TheHrespective clauses did not, however, identify the authorities who should

issue such orders. The two universities of the State of Kerala havecertified the appellants’ B.Ed. degrees to have equivalent status to theones required and this was followed by the two GOs. These documents,however, were generated during the selection process.

22. large body of authorities was cited to contend that suchrecognition subsequent to publication of the employment notification wasimpermissible. The High Court particularly relied on Full Bench decisionof the Kerala High Court in the case of A. Suma v. The Kerala PublicService Commission & Ors. reported in [(2011) 1 KLT1 (FB)]. Inthat judgment, referring to the 1958 Rules, it was held that the Commissionwas incompetent to deal with the question of equivalence of educationaland other qualifications prescribed unless the subject rules provided forrecognition of qualifications other than that prescribed as equivalent.But so far as these two appeals are concerned, we are not dealing witha question as regards the authority of Commission to deal with the questionof equivalency. In this case, equivalency has been declared by the StateGovernment, and prior to that, by two universities of the State of Kerala.The power of the State Government to make orders on the question ofequivalence is not in dispute. Such power, inter alia, stems from Clause10(a) (ii) of 1958 Rules. Thus, the case of A. Suma (supra) has noapplication as regards the appellants’ rights to be considered for theposts in question having regard to their B.Ed. degrees.

23. Learned counsel for the respondents have emphasised on thedecision of this court in the case of Aarya K. Babu (supra). This caseinvolved the question of appointment of certain individuals by the appellantbank in the post of Agricultural Field Officer. One of the degreesprescribed in the eligibility criteria was Agro-Forestry. The clause relatingto qualification requirement in the notification dated involved in the saidcase read:-

“4-year degree (graduation) in Agricultre/Horticulture/AnimalHusbandry/Veterinary Science/Diary Science/Agri Engineering/Fishery Science/Pisciculture/Agri Marketing & Co-operation/Co-operation & Banking/Agro-Forestry.”

24. The candidates who brought that action initially did not possessdegree in any of the subjects specified therein, but their degrees were inForestry. They were successful in the selection process but their selectionwas cancelled on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed

Aqualification in terms of the notification. It transpired that there was no4-year degree programme being offered in this country for Agro-Forestry.Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) had taken view thatdefinition of agriculture included forestry. It appears that on that basisthe degrees of the respective candidates in that proceeding were acceptedat the initial stage. In the month of November, 2015, an OfficeBMemorandum was issued by the Ministry in which the fact of therebeing no 4-year bachelor programme in Agro-Forestry available in thecountry was taken note of. On the ground that Agro- Forestry wascovered comprehensively as subject in the ICAR approved syllabusfor B.Sc. Forestry, it was suggested that it would be appropriate thatCdegree in B.Sc. Forestry ought to be considered for the posts ofAgricultural Field Officer in banks. corrigendum was subsequentlyissued by the Indian Bank Personnel Selection (IBPS) on 16th January,2016 in that regard. The cancellation order was successfully challengedby the terminated candidates in the High Court of Kerala, against whichthe Bank instituted the petition for special leave to appeal. Leave wasDgranted in the Bank’s petition. It was held by coordinate Bench of thisCourt in the case of Aarya K. Babu (supra):-“17. In that backdrop, though in the instant facts presently thequalification possessed by the private respondents is decided tobe included for the purpose of recruitment to the post ofEAgricultural Field Officer, as on the date of the recruitmentnotification the same was not included therein, which cannot besubstituted by the Court with retrospective effect for the reasonsstated above. Therefore, in the said circumstance, in the presentfacts, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion. We,Fhowever, make it clear that though we have referred to the legalposition and applied the same to the case of the parties who arebefore us, if in the case of similar recruitment, the employersthemselves have permitted the equivalence and have continuedsuch of those officers recruited, this decision shall not be appliedto initiate action against such officers at this distant point of time.GSubject to the above, the orders passed by the High Court ofKerala which are impugned herein are set aside.

18. Having arrived at the above conclusion we also take note ofthe submission of the learned counsel for the private respondentin the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16567 of 2016, namely,

Smt. Aarya K. Babu that she is placed in very difficultcircumstances subsequent to the discharge from service which isalso due to certain setback in her personal life. Though we do notwish to articulate the actual fact situation narrated we have noreason to disbelieve the same, hence, we find it appropriate thatin her case it is necessary to exercise our discretion under Article142 of the Constitution to serve the ends of justice and do completejustice without prejudicing either of the parties. In that view, wedirect the appellant Bank of India to provide appointment to Smt.Aarya K. Babu as Agricultural Field Officer or such otherequivalent post if the vacancy exists as on today or in the vacancythat would arise in future. In that regard it is made clear that thesame will be considered as fresh appointment from the date ofappointment and no previous benefit can be claimed by her. Further,it is made clear that this direction is issued in the peculiar factsand circumstances of this case and the same shall not be treatedas precedent for any other case.”

25. So far as the present appeals are concerned, the facts are notidentical or near similar also considering the factual background of thecase of Aarya K. Babu (supra). In the two GOs which have beenreproduced earlier, it has been specified that the respective B.Ed. degreesof the appellants through regular study were equivalent to B.Ed. degreein Natural Science. In the case of PK, his B.Ed. Degree in BiologicalScience was recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. Natural Science Degreeof Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. In the case of AD, the GOstipulated that Double Main B.Ed. (Biological Science Education andPhysical Science Education) degree obtained by her through regularmode was recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. Natural Science Degree ofUniversity of Calicut. It is fact that these orders came much after theemployment notifications were issued. But what we have to address inthese appeals is as to whether the respective B.Ed. degrees of theappellants declared as equivalent to those of the concerned subjects asnotified would operate from the dates of issue of the respective GOs orthe same would relate back to the time when they obtained the degreesor at least to the date of the employment notification. The appellantshave relied on decision of coordinate Bench in the case of Beena R.v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors. [(2017) 15 SCC306]. In that case, however, there was no dispute in the case of appellantthat she possessed equivalent qualification of KGTE (English typewriting)

Abut she did not have separate certificate as far as the computerwordprocessing was concerned. In this judgment, coordinate Benchexamined the implication of the expression “produced”. This authoritydoes not aid the appellants.

26. Note (v) of Clause 7 of the employment notification in theBcase PK and Note (vi) of Clause 7 of the employment notification in thecase of AD required disclosure of the equivalency orders. plain readingof the two GOs clearly reflect that their degrees were equivalent to therequisite qualifications contained in the eligibility criteria. In the case ofAarya K. Babu (supra), the disputed subject was recognizedsubsequently and introduced as part of the eligibility criteria. The principleCof equivalency was not the main reasoning on the basis of which thesaid case was decided. The word “equivalence” in its plain meaningimplies something which is equal to another. In the field of academics,application of the principle of equivalency in relation to degrees in twosubjects would mean that they had the same standing or status all along,Dunless the official instrument according equivalency specifies date fromwhich the respective subjects would be treated as such, in express termsor by implication.

27. Whether GO would have prospective effect or relate backto an earlier date is question which would have to be decided on theEbasis of text and tenor of the respective orders. The GOs which declaredappellants’ degrees to be equivalent to those required as per the applicablenotifications were not general orders but these two orders were personspecific, relating to the two appellants. Once the GOs specifically declaredthat their B.Ed. degrees were equivalent to the designated subject whichformed part of the employment notification, the GOs in substance haveFto be interpreted as clarificatory in nature and these cannot be construedto have had elevated the status or position of the degree they alreadyhad after the declaration was made in the GOs. The subject GOs onlyrecognised an existing state of affairs so far as the nature of the degreeswere concerned and did not create fresh value for the degrees whichGthe appellants possessed. Though these equivalent orders were not inexistence on the dates of issue of employment notifications, the GOs insubstance recognize such status from the dates of obtaining such degrees.The GOs do not reveal any intervening circumstances which could beconstrued to imply that the respective degrees acquired the equivalentstatus because of such circumstances occurring subsequent to grant ofH

their B.Ed. degrees. The aforesaid Notes to Clause 7 of the employmentnotifications postulated disclosure of the number and date of the orderson equivalence. But the GOs to which we have referred treat theequivalency to be operating on the dates of obtaining such degrees. Thus,the defect, if any, on disclosure requirement, shall stand cured on issueof the University orders followed by the GOs. The GOs also specify thecontext in which these were issued and refer to the appellants beingincluded in the list of KPSC. This being the case, we do not think treatingthe appellants’ degrees as equivalent to those required under the applicablenotifications by the GOs issued in the year 2019 would result in changein the rules of the game midway. At best, it can be termed as interpretingthe rules when the game was on, figuratively speaking. Such coursewould, in our opinion, be permissible. For this reason, we do not considerit necessary to deal with the different authorities cited on the principle of“change in the rule of the game midway”. We have opined that theappellants’ degrees in B.Ed. were equivalent to those required by theemployment notifications and the equivalency orders were merelyclarificatory in nature. For this reason, we do not think there was anyfundamental breach of Notes (v) and (vi) of Clause 7 of the respectiveemployment notifications in the cases of the appellants.

28. Once we hold so, we do not think relief can be denied to thesetwo appellants on the ground that other similarly situated persons maynot have had applied for the same posts and were being put todisadvantage. In the case of Aarya K. Babu (supra), that course wasadopted by coordinate Bench as it was new subject which wasadded to subsisting range of subjects in the qualification criteria. Theprinciple of service jurisprudence that candidate must possess therequisite qualification for post on the date of issue of employmentnotification cannot be applied in the appellants’ cases, as in our view,they possessed equivalent qualifications when they applied for the posts.The GOs only confirmed the equivalency of their B.Ed. degrees. In ouropinion, they shall be deemed to have had the equivalent qualification onthe relevant date. As we have held that the respective GOs only clarifiedor confirmed an existing status of certain educational qualifications, inabsence of specific instance of similarly situated but unspecified numberof persons having not applied for the posts would be unfair to the oneswho apply for the same and undergo three levels of litigations to establishthat they had equivalent degrees.

960SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A29. The judgments under appeal are accordingly set aside and theorders of the Tribunal dated 20[th] September, 2019 and 2[nd] September2019 shall stand restored. Let result of the appellants be disclosed and inthe event, on the basis of their performance, they come within the list ofselected candidates as per the ranked lists, the benefit thereof shall notbe denied to the appellants on the ground of lapse of the list by efflux ofBtime. In the event they qualify for appointment, they shall be givenappointment and they shall be treated to have been in service from thedate of their appointment in their respective posts. The appeals standallowed in the above terms. All pending applications stand disposed of.

30. There shall be no orders as to costs.C

Divya Pandey

Appeals allowed.