Kerala High Court
Aswathy K.R vs Raheena C on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2024:KER:79961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
R.P. NO. 1095 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2024 IN OP(KAT)
NO.280 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
ASWATHY K.R.
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O SHIJU C.S., RESIDING AT CHERUKARA HOUSE,
PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA P.O., NORTH PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683522.
BY ADVS.
S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
V.VARGHESE
N.SANTHA
PETER JOSE CHRISTO
S.A.ANAND
K.N.REMYA
L.ANNAPOORNA
2024:KER:79961
2
R.P.No.1095 of 2024 in
O.P.(KAT) No.280 of 2024
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RAHEENA C.,
W/O ASHARAF K.V., WORKING AS CLERK, DIRECTORATE
OF GROUND WATER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
JALAVIJNANA BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003, RESIDING AT
KRA-38 A, MATHRAVILA, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
3 DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
DIRECTORATE OF GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
JALAVIGNANA BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIYAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003.
SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79961
3
R.P.No.1095 of 2024 in
O.P.(KAT) No.280 of 2024
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
R.P.No.1095 of 2024
in
O.P.(KAT) No.280 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2024
ORDER
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner in O.P.(KAT) No.280 of 2024 has filed this
petition for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
petitioner seeks to review the judgment dated 05.09.2024 by
which the original petition was dismissed. The following is the
grounds for the review:
"As per Annexure-A judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court declared the law that B.Sc.Polymer Chemistry is
not equivalent to B.Sc. Chemistry. It is a law
applicable across the country by virtue of Article 141
of the Constitution of India. It is an error apparent on
the face of the records that the law declared by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure-A judgment was
not followed while disposing of O.P.(KAT) No.280 of
2024."
2024:KER:79961
R.P.No.1095 of 2024 in
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the question whether B.Sc. (Polymer Chemistry) to be
equated with B.Sc. (Chemistry) was raised at the time of
hearing of the original petition, but this Court did not consider
that question. It is further submitted that this Court should
have considered that question especially in view of the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Annexure A
judgment, which is the law of the land. The contention of the
learned Senior Government Pleader is that there was no such
plea in the original petition and therefore there was no
occasion for this Court to consider that question.
4. Although a precise plea was not raised by the
petitioner in the original petition, this Court was obligated to
consider that question for, that was a question of law since
there existed a binding precedent rendered by the Apex
Court. In Annexure A judgment, the Apex Court held that
B.Sc. (Polymer Chemistry) could not be equated to B.Sc.
2024:KER:79961
R.P.No.1095 of 2024 in
(Chemistry). The reasons stated by the Apex Court to take
such a view is stated in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the
judgment, which read:
"14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad
Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and
Others [(2019) 2 SCC 404] held that judicial
review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the
prescribed qualifications with any other given
qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a
qualification is not a matter that can be determined in
the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether
a particular qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as
the recruiting authority, to determine. (emphasis
supplied)
15. In Unnikrishnan CV and Others v. Union of
India and Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 343], a
three Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon
the earlier judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev
University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another4 held
that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it
cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the
academic body of the University relating to
equivalence should be by specific order or resolution,
2024:KER:79961
R.P.No.1095 of 2024 in
duly published."
What emerges is that for want of a decision of the State
equating both the courses, the Apex Court took such a view.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader made
available for our perusal a copy of the order issued by the
Government of Kerala, G.O.(Rt) No.949/2019/H.Edn. dated
13.06.2019. In the order, the Government ordered as follows:
"As per the letter read above, Calicut University has
requested the Government to include B.Sc. Polymer
Chemistry and M.Sc. Polymer Chemistry as eligible
qualification to apply for the posts of HSA (Physical
Science, Chemist, etc.) since the University has granted
equivalency for B.Sc. Polymer Chemistry with B.Sc.
Chemistry and M.Sc. Polymer Chemistry with M.Sc.
Chemistry.
In the circumstances, Government are pleased to issue
orders equating B.Sc. Polymer Chemistry and M.Sc.
Polymer Chemistry of Calicut University to B.Sc.
Chemistry and M.Sc. Chemistry of that University
respectively for all purposes including Higher Studies
and employment."
6. In the light of the said order of the Government,
there can have no contention that B.Sc. (Polymer Chemistry)
and B.Sc. (Chemistry) are not equivalent. So, on merit, the
2024:KER:79961
R.P.No.1095 of 2024 in
petitioner cannot succeed. The petition is therefore
dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2024:KER:79961
R.P.No.1095 of 2024 in
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2024 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4468 OF 2013(SHIFANA
P.S. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND
OTHERS)
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.
(MS)NO.317/2017/H.EDN DATED 27.12.2017
