New Delhi | The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the Kerala Public Service Commission's policy accepting higher qualifications than those prescribed in a notification for the recruitment to the post of Junior Public Health Nurse Grade II.
Upholding the concurrent views of the Kerala High Court and Kerala Administrative Tribunal, a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol said they are "not inclined to interfere in this special leave petition" after hearing the counsels.
The matter relates to the notification dated December 31, 2012, calling for recruitment to the post of Junior Public Health Nurse Grade II. The post required an Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM) certificate. However, one candidate named Elizabeth Thomas possessed a Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM), which is a higher qualification than the ANM certificate.
The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) earlier refused to include her in the shortlist on the ground of "lack of qualification".
In the earlier orders of the high court and the tribunal, the ruling was in Thomas's favour as her GNM certification was decided to fulfil the eligibility criteria.
In both the orders, the applicability of Rule 10 of the Kerala State And Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 was emphasized through another Supreme Court precedent as it was noted that the possession of a higher qualification can presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post.
Following these judgments, the KPSC's Academic Committee conducted a comparative analysis of the syllabi and recommended that the three-year GNM course be treated as higher than the 18-month ANM course. The Commission then issued executive decisions granting general applicability to this principle, extending it to all pending and future recruitments for the post.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta and advocate-on-record Vipin Nair appeared as the counsels for KPSC.
During the proceedings in the apex court, the KPSC's counsels emphasized that the Commission had acted in compliance with judicial directives and based its decision on expert academic review.
They also highlighted that most petitioners in the case had either been appointed under the revised criteria or had not completed the selection process, thereby leaving no substantive grievance for the court to address.
