[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Lekshmy Priya M on 29 January, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 379 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO.1877 OF 2024 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:
1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 682016
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
DISTRICT OFFICE, EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, ERNAKULAM SOUTH
RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI, KERALA., PIN - 682016
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 NITHYA.V.L,D/O VINODKUMAR.N.R, RESIDING AT V.L NIVAS,
CHAMAVILA, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA., PIN - 695042
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION HIGHER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA., PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.
SMT.HASNA ASHRAF T.A
SHRI.ANANDU U.R.
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2026 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) NO.400 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 400 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO.591 OF 2024 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 ASWATHI M.VIJAYAN,W/O ANISH C, MANNAKUNNEL,
KUDAYATHOOR.P.O, THODUPPUZHA, IDUKKI, KERALA, PIN -
685590
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.,SMT.VISHAKHA J.
SMT.HASNA ASHRAF T.A,SHRI.ANANDU U.R.
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2026 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) NO.379 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 429 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO.1001 OF 2024 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 LEKSHMY PRIYA M
D/O NARAYANAN POTTI...RESIDING AT CHENGILLAM. T
C/2839-55(C-19), TM NAGAR, THALIYIL, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695002
2 GREESHMA S
D/O SASIDHARAN NAIR, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,
PERINGAMALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
695563
3 VAISAKH C L
S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, VAISAKHOM, MADANTHCODE,
NELLIMUKKU P O, KOLLAM,KERALA, PIN - 691509
4 SALIJA S
W/O MIDHUN S, SAJITH BHAVAN, AKKOLICHERI, MAYYANADU P
O, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691020
4
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
5 PRATHIBHA V T
W/O SHIBU, PUNNAMOODU, KALLIYOOR PO, VELLAYANI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695042
6 ATHIRA M S
W/O JAYASANKAR, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHELLAMCODE,
POOVATHOOR P O, NEDUMANGADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA, PIN - 695561
7 AMAL G H
S/O HARIKUMAR, HARITHAM, VAMANAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA, PIN - 695606
8 GOKUL G S
S/O GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, KRISHNASREE, NETTA, NEDUMANGADU
P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA, PIN - 695541
9 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.
SMT.VISHAKHA J.
SMT.HASNA ASHRAF T.A
SHRI.ANANDU U.R.
SMT.PRINCNY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2026 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) NO.379 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 434 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO.1530 OF 2024 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PATTOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT OFFICE, SC/ST/BUILDING, TOWN HALL
ROAD, THRISSUR. KERALA, PIN - 680020
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 REMYA S.N, W/O SANTHOSH, RESIDING AT RAKESH NIVAS
CHERUTHURUTHY PANJAL, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR, KERALA.,
PIN - 679531
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION HIGHER, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.,SMT.VISHAKHA J.,SMT.HASNA ASHRAF
T.A,SHRI.ANANDU U.R., SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2026 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) NO.379 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
6
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 436 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO.1842 OF 2024 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:
1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 685001
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
DISTRICT OFFICE, EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, ERNAKULAM SOUTH
RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI, KERALA., PIN - 682016
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
1 VAISAKH.C.L,S/O CHANDRASEKARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT
VAISAKHAM, MADANTHACODE, KUZHIMATHICADU, NELLIMUKKU,
KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691509
2 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION HIGHER, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,KERALA., PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.,SMT.VISHAKHA J.,SMT.HASNA ASHRAF
T.A,SHRI.ANANDU U.R., SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2026 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) NO.379 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
7
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 439 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO.1536 OF 2024 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PATTOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. KERALA, PIN - 695004
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE,
PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 695004
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 LEKSHMY PRIYA M,D/O NARAYANAN POTTI... RESIDING AT
CHENGILLAM TC/2839-55 C-19 TM NAGAR THALIYIL,
KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695002
2 SALIJA.S,W/O MIDHUN.S., SAJITH BHAVAN,
AKKOLICHERI. MAYYANADU.P.O., KOLLAM DIST,KERALA,
PIN - 691020
3 REJITHA R,D/O RAVEENDRANACHARY, RENJITH BHAVAN,
ULANADU P O, KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA,
PIN - 689503
4 STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION HIGHER,
8
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA.,
PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.,SMT.VISHAKHA J.
SMT.HASNA ASHRAF T.A,SHRI.ANANDU U.R.,
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2026 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) NO.379 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
9
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 441 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO.1062 OF 2024 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS/2ND RESPONDENT:
1 LEKSHMI VENUGOPAL,D/O. VENUGOPAL, RESIDING AT
SREELEKSHMY, 25 NCC NAGAR, PEROORKADA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695005
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY. HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.,SMT.VISHAKHA J.
SMT.HASNA ASHRAF T.A,SHRI.ANANDU U.R.
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2026 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) NO.379 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
10
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 456 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO.1316 OF 2024 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 MASHEEKA SALAM,W/O NASEEF MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT
NARIKUTHU HOUSE, PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA,, PIN -
673637
2 BABY NUBLA V.M,W/O AJMAL.M.A, AGED 29 YEARS, BABY
VILLA, VALIYAPARAMBU KOTAYI PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678572
3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY. HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.,SMT.VISHAKHA J.
SMT.HASNA ASHRAF T.A,SHRI.ANANDU U.R.
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2026 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) NO.379 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
11
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
These original petitions are filed by the Kerala Public Service
Commission ('KPSC', for short), invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the common order dated 01.07.2025 passed by
the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram (the
'Tribunal', for short) in the respective original applications. The
District Officer of KPSC is also one of the petitioners in some of
the original petitions, wherever he was a party in the respective
original applications. Since the point to be decided in these original
petitions is the same, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of
reference, the parties to these original petitions are referred to in
this judgment as they were referred by the Tribunal, unless
otherwise stated.
2. The point to be decided in these original petitions
depends upon the interpretation of the stipulation in the note
appended to Clause (7) of the respective notifications dated
31.12.2020 and 30.11.2022 issued by the KPSC inviting
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
applications for the post of Librarian Grade-IV in the Department
of Kerala Common Pool Library and in the Department of Kerala
Municipal Common Service and also the qualifications prescribed
for the said post in the Kerala Common Pool Library Subordinate
Service Rules as it stood amended in the year 2009, through the
gazette notification dated 09.06.2009.
3. While coming to the facts of these original petitions, the
applicants before the Tribunal are candidates possessing a
Bachelor's Degree in Library and Information Science (BLISc)
obtained through Distance Education Mode from various
Universities, like the Institute of Distance Education of the
University of Kerala, the Indira Gandhi National Open University
(IGNOU), etc. By the notification dated 31.12.2020, the KPSC has
invited applications for the selection of Librarian Grade-IV in the
Department of Kerala Municipal Common Services. Similarly, by
the notification dated 30.11.2022, the KPSC has invited
applications for the post of Librarian Grade-IV in the Department
of Kerala Common Pool Library. As per the notifications, the
stipulated qualifications for direct recruitment are: (i) Bachelor's
Degree in any subject and Bachelor's Degree in Library and
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
Information Science, or (ii) SSLC and Diploma in Library Science,
or (iii) SSLC and Certificate in Library Science recognised by the
Government. As per note (ii) appended to Clause (7) of the
notification dated 31.12.2020 and note (1) appended to Clause
(7) of notification dated 30.11.2022, it is stipulated that the
qualification proposed for direct recruitment shall be one acquired
after undergoing a regular course of study from any of the
Universities in Kerala or recognised as equivalent thereto by any
of the Universities in Kerala.
3.1. The applicants were included in the short list published
by the KPSC, drawn on the basis of the written examination
conducted. But subsequently, their candidature was rejected
through endorsements made in their profile to the effect that they
have acquired the required qualification only through distance
education. According to the applicants, they have produced
equivalency certificates obtained from various Universities in
Kerala, certifying that the degree of BLISc obtained through
distance education mode is recognised as equivalent to the degree
of BLISc offered through regular course in the respective
Universities. The applicants further contended that, vide order
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
dated 02.05.2017 bearing G.O.(Ms)No.119/2017/H.Edn, the
Government of Kerala has declared that one year BLISc course
offered through the school of distance education of the University
of Kerala and one year BLISc degree course (regular) offered by
the Department of Library and Information Science of the
University of Kerala are equivalent. Therefore, according to the
applicants, they are fully qualified for the post of Librarian Grade-
IV as notified above. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their
candidature, the applicants filed the respective original
applications seeking their inclusion in the ranked lists published by
the KPSC and the District Officers of the KPSC to publish the
revised ranked list incorporating the applicants therein.
3.2. The applicants in all the cases were permitted to
participate in the selection process, provisionally, based on interim
orders issued by the Tribunal. However, their names were not
included in the ranked list published by the KPSC, mentioning that
the results of those candidates are withheld subject to final orders
in the original applications.
3.3. In some of the original applications, the KPSC filed
reply statements, inter alia, contending that the stipulation in the
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
notification that the degree has to be acquired after undergoing a
regular course of study. The equivalent degree also has to satisfy
the said condition of regular study. The KPSC issued the
notifications based on the Special Rules in existence, which are
statutory rules in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of
India and the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968, which laid down
the qualification to be acquired through a regular mode of study.
The qualification mentioned in the notification is entirely based on
the Special Rules for the post. Since the degree obtained by the
applicants was through distance education scheme, their
applications for the post were rejected as they had not possessed
the required qualification through regular study as insisted in the
notification.
3.4. In the reply statement filed by the State of Kerala, it is
stated that the University of Kerala has recognised BLISc degree
course through distance education as equivalent to the regular
course offered by the Departments of the said University. It is
pursuant to that the Government issued the notification dated
02.05.2017 declaring that the one-year BLISc degree course
offered through the school of distance education of the University
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
of Kerala and the one-year BLISc degree course (regular) offered
by the Department of Library and Information Science of the
University of Kerala are equivalent. According to the Government,
it is up to the University concerned to decide whether the BLISc
degree course obtained through distance education mode offered
by any other University is equivalent to the regular course of that
University, within the State. The State Government had issued
orders regarding the equivalency on the basis of reports of the
University/Higher Education Council.
3.5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the Tribunal allowed the original applications,
holding that the equivalency certificates produced by the
applicants, obtained from the Universities in Kerala, as well as the
equivalency ordered by the Government would indicate that the
applicants are satisfying the qualifications stipulated under the
Special Rules and the notification, making them eligible to contest
in the selection to the post in question. The Tribunal declared that
the applicants are fulfilling the qualifications stipulated to the post
of Librarian Grade IV under the notifications published by the
KPSC, based on the equivalency certificates produced from the
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
Universities in Kerala. Consequently, the rejection of their
candidature made by the KPSC was set aside, and KPSC was
directed to publish an addendum notification by including the
applicants at the appropriate ranking position and to issue advice
based on their turn. The steps were directed to be completed
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
the said order.
3.6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal,
KPSC and its District Officers are now before this Court with these
original petitions.
4. Heard Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel
for the KPSC, Sri.Kalam Pasha, the learned counsel for the party
respondents - applicants and Smt.Princy Xavier, the learned
Senior Government Pleader.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC would submit that
going by the qualifications prescribed in the note appended to
Clause (7) of the notifications, a candidate in order to qualify for
the selection to the post of Librarian Grade IV in the Department
of Kerala Common Pool Library as well as in the Department of
Kerala Municipal Common Services should have acquired the
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
Bachelors Degree in Library and Information Science after
undergoing a regular course of study from any of the Universities
in Kerala or recognised as equivalent thereto by any of the
Universities in Kerala, which means that the equivalency should
be only to the candidates who acquired the said qualification by a
regular course of study from any of the Universities outside Kerala.
The equivalency certificates produced by the applicants should
satisfy not only equivalency but regular course of study also. The
Tribunal failed to consider these aspects while passing the
impugned order. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted
that the necessity of acquiring the qualification by undergoing a
regular course of study stipulated in the notifications as well as in
the Special Rules, is not challenged in the original applications.
The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Shine
Bose. B v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2015 (1) KHC
354], the judgment dated 21.12.2016 passed by a Division Bench
of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.131 of 2016 Asha. K v. State of
Kerala [2016 :KER: 55340], and that of the Apex Court in
Nagaland Public Service Commission v. State of Nagaland
[(2017) 13 SCC 498] in support of his arguments.
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
6. On the other hand, Sri.Kalam Pasha, the learned
counsel for the party respondents, would submit that the
equivalency certificates granted by the Universities to the
applicants are applicable as if it is equal to one acquired by
undergoing a regular course of study from the respective
Universities. In those certificates, it is specifically stated that the
equivalency granted is by recognising the degree of BLISc
(distance education) awarded to the applicants as equivalent to
BLISc (regular) degree. Moreover, the Government of Kerala has
also taken a stand that the equivalency certificates issued to the
applicants are sufficient to qualify for the posts notified. Apart
from that, the Government has issued an order declaring that the
one-year BLISc degree course offered through the school of
distance education of the University of Kerala and one year BLISc
degree course (regular) offered by the Department of Library and
Information Science of the University of Kerala are equivalent. In
support of his arguments the learned counsel relied on the
judgments of the Apex Court in Jaiveer Singh v. State of
Uttarakhand [2023 KHC Online 1005], State of Punjab v.
Manjit Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 559] and Guru Nanak Dev
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610]. The
learned counsel further submitted that the judgment in Shine
Bose. B [2015 (1) KHC 354] is not applicable to the facts of the
instant cases.
7. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that even if a Government order is there, it is the Special Rules
that would prevail and therefore the equivalent qualification
obtained by the applicants should be after undergoing a regular
course of study.
8. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
10. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
11. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order
of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to
it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
14. In Shine Bose.B [2015 (1) KHC 354] while
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
considering the issue whether the M.Com degree obtained under
a correspondence course from Annamalai University by the
petitioners therein is sufficient for being considered for
recruitment to the post of Vocational Teacher in Office
Secretaryship in terms of the notification dated 30.11.2009 issued
by the KPSC in view of note (1) under Rule 4 of the Kerala
Vocational Higher Secondary Education Subordinate Service Rules
2004, which provides that all the educational qualifications for
teaching posts should be acquired after a regular course of study
from a recognized University in Kerala or recognised as equivalent
thereto by any one of the Universities in Kerala, a Division Bench
of this Court held thus:
"3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once
the equivalence of the qualification is certified by the
University of Kerala, the M. Com. Degree of the Annamalai
University ought to have been treated as equivalent to the
M. Com. Degree of the University of Kerala. But, the fact of
the matter remains that the aforequoted Note under R.4 of
the Special Rules provides that the qualification should be
one acquired after a regular course of study. Remember, we
are dealing with recruitment to a teaching post. If we are
to dissect the aforequoted rule and hold that a
correspondence course from any other University will be
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
equivalent to a degree obtained after a regular course of
study from a University in Kerala, the situation will be
contradictory. We say so because, if we adopt such a view,
while a candidate qualifying from a University in Kerala
should be one who had undergone a regular course of study,
a candidate who obtains a degree from any University
outside Kerala would be eligible without undergoing a
regular course of study. It would be fallacious if we were to
hold so. The very purpose of having the prescription that
one should have acquired the educational qualification after
a regular course of study is consciously made by the
Government in the Special Rules, having regard to the
objects sought to be achieved; that is to say, to pick up
competent hands to man the teaching posts".
(Underline supplied)
15. In the judgment dated 21.12.2016 in O.P.(KAT)No.131
of 2016 Asha. K v. State of Kerala [2016 :KER: 55340], a
Division Bench of this Court held thus:
"5. The PSC issued Annexure A1 notification dated
30.04.2010, inviting application for selection and
appointment as HSST-Senior [English]. Subsequently,
Annexure A2 addendum notification was issued, inviting
applications also for selection and appointment as
HSSTJunior [English]. This was followed by yet another
notification as Annexure A3, whereby the PSC invited
applications from qualified candidates for selection and
appointment as NVT-Senior/Junior [English]. The
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
qualifications stipulated for both the streams [HSST/NVT]
were almost the same and the only difference in Annexure
A3 notification was that the qualification should be one
acquired after 'regular study'. Pursuant to the applications
preferred by the petitioners, they participated in a common
examination conducted by the PSC [common to all the four
different posts notified as per Annexure A1, A2 & A3].
XXX XXX XXX XXXX
14. The contention of the petitioners appears to be that,
once a course is recognised as equivalent by anyone of the
Universities in Kerala, 'regular course of study' should not
have been insisted any further. The prayers raised in the
O.A. in the above context are in the following terms:
"i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writ, direction or order to the respondents to include
the name of the applicant in the rank list for
appointment to the post of Non-Vocational Teacher
English (Senior) and further to advice and appoint her
to the service.
ii) issue a writ order or direction to declare that
Note:1 to Rule 6(1) of the Rules 2004 [if made
applicable to Rule 6(1) (English) is illegal and
unsustainable.
iii) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ
order or direction to call for the records leading to
Annexures A11 to the extent of not including the
name of the applicant and quash the same.
iv) grant such other orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
case.
and
v) award the cost of this application to the applicant".
15. With regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners with reference to the
'correspondences with the UGC', as to the importance of
'distance education', dealt with as Annexures A12 to A14
[pages 93, 94 & 96], it is to be noted that Annexure A12
dated 28.07.1993 is in respect of the Distance Educational
Course offered by Open University established in the
country by an Act of Parliament in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 2(f) of the University Grant
commission Act, 1956. It was accordingly clarified that
these Universities were therefore empowered to award
Degrees in terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, 1956.
Annexure A14 issued by the AICTE on 13.05.2005 refers to
recognition of MBA/MCA awarded by 'IGNOU' established by
sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the IGNOU Act, 1985.
Similarly, Annexure A15 dated 14.10.2013 is a
communication issued by the UGC in respect of equivalence
of Degree awarded by Open and Distance Learning
Institutions established under an Act of Parliament.
16. The issue where the Degree obtained under a
correspondence course from Annamalai University can be
treated as equivalent to the Degree awarded by the
University of Kerala came to be considered by Division
Bench of this Court in Shine Bose v. Kerala Public Service
Commission [2015 (1) KLT 591]. The question considered
by the Bench was with reference to 'Note I' under the Rules
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
for Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education
Subordinate Service Rules, 2004, which specifically
provided that, all the educational qualifications for teaching
course should be those acquired after 'regular course' of
study from the recognised University in Kerala or recognised
as equivalent thereto by anyone of the Universities in
Kerala. The verdict passed by the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal holding that, in so far as 'teaching posts' were
concerned, the candidate should have obtained the Degree,
after undergoing a 'regular course' of study, was upheld and
the O.P.s were dismissed. However, there is a contention for
the petitioners that the law declared by the Division Bench
of this Court in 2015 (1) KLT 591 [supra] is distinguishable.
Despite the said attempted made by the learned counsel,
we find it difficult to persuade ourselves to hold that the
dictum in 2015 (1) KLT 591 [supra] is distinguishable. As
clearly pointed out, the issue involved in the said case [2015
(1) KLT 591] [supra] was whether the basic qualification of
M.Com. for appointment to the post of Vocational Teacher
obtained under a correspondence course from the
Annamalai University was equivalent to be regarded as
M.Com. Degree of the University of Kerala. The Bench
referred to 'Note I' under the Rules, 2004 [which are
statutory Rules in terms of the provisions of the Constitution
of India and the Kerala Public Service Act, 1968], which
specifically provided that all the educational qualifications
for teaching course should be acquired after a regular
course of study from a recognised University in Kerala or
recognised as equivalent thereto by anyone of the
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
Universities in Kerala. The main contention put forth by the
petitioner before the Court was that the 'Note' was amended
based on the undertaking given before this Court as per the
Counter Affidavit filed in WP(C) No.12209 of 2006 that, the
Rule was proposed to be amended and that there would be
no hurdle in approving promotion of the writ petitioner. But
according to the PSC, the amendment was necessitated to
give effect to the judgment already rendered by this Court
on the point that the Rule could not stipulate that Degree
issued from any University in Kerala alone will be
considered, thus necessitating the equivallency to be
pointed out, which in fact was done by adding the 'Note'.
The submission made before the Court was that, the
'bracketed portion' in the 'Note' giving equivalency to the
Degree obtained from a University outside the State was
quite categoric, in so far as nothing else was to be looked
into, ie., whether it was under the regular study or the
correspondence stream. The Bench observed that, if such
an interpretation was to be given, candidates qualifying
from the University in Kerala, should be those, who had
undergone a 'regular course' of study; wheareas a candidate
obtaining Degree from any 'University outside the Kerala'
without undergoing a regular course of study would become
eligible; which was held as fallacious. Observing that the
stipulation was in respect of recruitment to a 'Teaching post'
and in so far as specific stipulation was there in the Rule to
have obtained a Degree after pursuing a 'regular course', if
the Court was to dissect the aforesaid Rule and hold that a
'correspondence course' from any University was enough as
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
equivalent to a Degree obtained after the 'regular course' of
study from the University of Kerala, the result would be
disastrous. It was also observed that the prescription that
one should have acquired the educational qualification after
'regular course' of study, was a conscious decision of the
Government, as borne by the Special Rules and as such, no
interference was possible. This Court does not find any
reason to deviate from the view taken by the Bench in 2015
(1) KLT 591." (underline supplied)
16. In Nagaland Public Service Commission [(2017)
13 SCC 498], the Apex Court held thus:
"2. The short dispute that arises for consideration in these
two appeals is on the essential qualification for the post of
Lecturer, Chemistry in the Higher Education Department in
the State of Nagaland.
3. The prescribed qualification is M.Sc. in the subject
concerned. The appellant, in the connected matter, is only
M.Sc. in Biochemistry. It is the contention of the appellants
that Biochemistry is Chemistry for all purposes.
4. We find it difficult to accept the submission. It may be
seen from the advertisement itself for Item No.10, that for
the post of Lecturer in Chemistry, what is prescribed is only
M.Sc. without any further description. It is a post in the
Department of Information Technology and Technical
Education. But for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in
Higher Education, the prescribed qualification, being M.Sc.
in the subject concerned, namely, Chemistry itself, the
appellant - Nagaland Public Service Commission is not right
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
in completing selection based on the opinion sought from
the expert that Biochemistry is Chemistry for all purposes.
5. Qualification is something to be prescribed by the State
Government, the appointing authority. The Commission is
only to go by the qualification and it cannot improve upon
that. Since the State does not have a case that the appellant
possesses the required qualification and rightly so, we find
no merit in the appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed".
(underline supplied)
17. In Guru Nanak Dev University [(2009) 1 SCC 610]
the Apex Court held thus:
"9. The prescription of eligibility criteria is very clear. It
requires a Bachelor's degree with not less than 45% marks
or a Master's degree. The university's contention that the
candidate must have a Bachelor's degree and only if his
marks are less than 45% in the Bachelor's Degree Course,
the Master's degree was to be considered, would mean that
the word 'or' should be substituted by the words 'in the
event of the candidate not having 45% marks in Bachelor's
degree'. Reading such words into the provision is
impermissible. The word 'or' is disjunctive. No doubt, in
some exceptional circumstances, the word 'or' has been
read as conjunctive as meaning 'and', where the context
warranted it. But the word 'or' cannot obviously be read as
referring to a conditional alternative, when such condition
is not specified. In view of the provision relating to eligibility
being unambiguous and using the word 'or', it is clear that
a Master's degree without a Bachelor's degree will satisfy
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
the eligibility requirement.
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
15. The first respondent has passed his M.A. (OUS) from
Annamalai University through distance education.
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 a specific
order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has
not been able to produce any document to show that
appellant university has recognized the M.A. English (OUS)
of Annamalai University through distance education as
equivalent to M.A. of appellant university. Thus it has to be
held that first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility
criterion of the appellant university for admission to three
year law course.
16. The first respondent made a faint attempt to contend
that the distance education system includes
'correspondence courses' and therefore recognition of M.A.
(correspondence course) as equivalent to M.A. Course of
appellant University, would amount to recognition of M.A. -
OUS (distance education) course, as an equivalent. For this
purpose, he relied upon the definition of 'distance education
system' in Section 2(e) of Indira Gandhi National Open
University Act, 1985. But there is nothing to show that
Annamalai University has treated correspondence course
and OUS (distance education) course as the same. What is
more important is that the appellant university does not
wish to treat correspondence course and Distance
Education Course as being the same. That is a matter of
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
policy. Courts will not interfere with the said policy relating
to an academic matter".
18. In Manjit Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 559], the Apex Court
held thus:
"9. In the present case, the stand of the appellant
Commission is that for medical services where the members
of service have to deal with the health and life of the people,
they must have some minimum standard of efficiency and
it is the bounden duty of the Commission to ensure the
same. It is perhaps with this view in mind that the
Commission fixed 45% minimum qualifying cut off marks
for general category candidates and 40% cut - off marks for
Scheduled Caste candidates. We feel, here lies the fallacy
in the whole reasoning of the Commission. It is no doubt
true that the Commission is an independent and
autonomous body and has to work without influence of any
authority or the government. It is rather under duty to act
independently. But at the same time the fact cannot be lost
sight of that the State Government is competent to lay
down the qualifications for different posts, and frame rules
for the purpose or take policy decisions which may of course
not be against the law.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
11. In the case in hand, it was not for the Commission to
have fixed any cut - off marks in respect of reserved
category candidates. The result has evidently been that
candidates otherwise qualified for interview stand rejected
on the basis of merit say, they do not have the upto the
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
mark merit, as prescribed by the Commission. The selection
was by interview of the eligible candidates. It is certainly
the responsibility of the Commission to make the selection
of efficient people amongst those who are eligible for
consideration. The unsuitable candidates could well be
rejected in the selection by interview. It is not the question
of subservience but there are certain matters of policies, on
which the decision is to be taken by the Government. The
Commission derives its powers under Art.320 of the
Constitution as well as its limits too. Independent and fair
working of the Commission is of utmost importance. It is
also not supposed to function under any pressure of the
government, as submitted on behalf of the appellant
Commission. But at the same time it has to conform to the
provisions of the law and has also to abide by the rules and
regulations on the subject and to take into account the
policy decisions which are within the domain of the State
Government. It cannot impose its own policy decision in a
matter beyond its purview". (underline supplied)
19. In Jaiveer Singh [2023 KHC Online 1005] the Apex
Court held thus:
"40. It will be relevant to refer to the observations of this
Court in the case of Devender Bhaskar and Others v. State
of Haryana and Others [(2021) SCC Online SC 1116/ 2021
INSC 783), which read thus:
"21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India[1975
(3) SCC 76] it was held that the question regarding
equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
question based on proper assessment and evaluation
of the relevant academic standards and practical
attainments of such qualifications. It was further held
that where the decision of the Government is based on
the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court,
uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical
insights necessary for the purpose of determining
equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of
the Government unless it is based on extraneous or
irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is
irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.
22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh [1990 (1) SCC 288] this Court held that it is
not for the court to consider the relevance of
qualification prescribed for various posts.
23. In State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun [2002 (6) SCC
252] this Court held that the prescribed eligibility
qualification for admission to a course or for
recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to
be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held
thus:
"13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is
clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for
admission to a course or for recruitment to or
promotion in service are matters to be considered by
the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide
whether a particular educational qualification should
or should not be accepted as equivalent to the
qualification prescribed by the authority."
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar
Katwal [2009 (1) SCC 610] this Court has reiterated
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 a specific order or resolution, duly
published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance
education course was equivalent to the degree of MA
(English) of the appellant university therein, the Court
held that no material had been produced before it to
show that the distance education course had been
recognized as such.
25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad
[2019 (2) SCC 404], it was held that the State, as an
employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a
condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration
the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient
discharge of duties, functionality of various
qualifications, course content leading up to the
acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review
can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the
prescribed qualifications with any other given
qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for
the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.
26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High
Court has erred in holding that the diploma/degree in
Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University is
equivalent to two - year Diploma in Art and Craft
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial
Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft
conducted by Director, Industrial Training and
Vocational Education, Haryana." (underline supplied)
20. As stated hereinabove, the question of qualification of
the applicants for the post of Librarian Grade IV centres around
the interpretation of the Note appended to clause 7 of the
notification. From the judgments referred to supra it is clear that
the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as
a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature
of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties,
functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to
the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. The Commission is
only to go by the qualification, and it cannot improve upon that.
It is also trite that when the special rules prescribe a particular
qualification, the government cannot dilute it by issuing a
subsequent executive order. In the instant cases, admittedly, the
qualification stated in the note appended to clause 7 of the
notification is the very same qualification prescribed in the Special
Rules. Then the question is how these qualifications have to be
interpreted.
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
21. When we dissect the Note appended to clause 7 of the
notification, it can be summarised as under:
1) Qualification acquired after undergoing a regular course of
study - That means the qualification required must have been
acquired by completing the course in the regular mode of study
and not by correspondence, distance learning or part-time.
(2) From any of the Universities in Kerala - the qualification
can be from any of the Universities in Kerala by undergoing a
regular course of study , or
(3) Recognised as equivalent thereto by any university in
Kerala - If the qualification is from any university outside
Kerala, it must be by undergoing a regular course of study
equivalent to the one declared by the University in Kerala.
22. In short, the qualification must be obtained through
regular course of study either from a university in Kerala or from
a university outside Kerala, but through a regular course of study
officially recognised as equivalent by a university in Kerala. In no
strength of imagination, the qualification obtained through
distance learning can be said as equivalent to a degree obtained
through a regular course. If the contention of the applicants is
accepted, it will create a situation that a candidate qualifying from
a University in Kerala should be by undergoing a regular course of
study, and whereas a candidate who obtains the qualification from
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
any University outside Kerala would be eligible without undergoing
a regular course of study. It would be fallacious if we were to hold
so as held in Shine Bose B [2015 (1) KHC 354].
23. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the
applicants did not satisfy the qualifications stipulated in the Note
appended to clause 7 of the notifications. The Tribunal grossly
erred in arriving at the right finding in this regard, which led to
the passing of the impugned order in favour of the applicants.
Therefore, these original petitions are liable to be allowed by
setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal.
In the result, the original petitions are allowed by setting
aside the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the
Tribunal in the original applications, and the original applications
stand dismissed. The pending interlocutory applications, if any,
stand closed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 379 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION-CATEGORY
NO.494/2020-497/2020 DATE 31-12-2020 ISSUED
BY KPSC
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF B.SC (ZOOLOGY) DEGREE
CERTIFICATE OF APPLICANT NO.0574269 DATE 14-
5-2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
Annexure A2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BLISC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE
NO.0646138 DATE 28-6-2021 OF APPLICANT ISSUED
BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF SHORT LIST WITH SL NO
33/2023/DOE CAT NO 494/2020 DATED 16/10/2023
ISSUED BY THE KPSC DISTRICT OFFICE ERNAKULAM
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER NO. E5-1/13/2019-
KPSC DOEKM DATE 25-9-2024 OF SECRETARY KPSC
PATTOM TVPM TO APPLICANT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO
1172/2024/SSV-CAT NO 494/2020. WEF. 25-11-
2024 ISSUED BY THE KPSC EMAKULAM
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29/11/2024
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS)NO 119/2017/H.EDN
DATED 2-5-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.1877/2024 FILED BY
THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.
NO.1877/2024 DATED 01/07/2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(b) The true copy of the G.O.(P) No.
14/2020/G.Edn dated 30.09.2020
Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No.
4340/2018/G.Edn dated 24.10.2018
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 400 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 31.12.2020
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT CAT NO.494/2020
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDATED.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF MESSAGE DATED 18.03.2024 SENT
BY 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CANDIDATE'S
PORTAL
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY IGNOU DATED 30.09.2020 REG NO. 195411645.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.UGCIDEB/2013
DATED 14.10.2013 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION (UGC)
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE
DATED 5.02.2024 NO. 104972 ISSUED BY M.G
UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF WP(C) NO.11295 OF 2024 (WITHOUT
EXHIBITS) FILED ON 19.03.2024 BEFORE THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
19.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.11295 OF 2024.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 25.03.2024
IN WP(C)NO.11295 OF 2024
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.591/2024 FILED BY
THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
1/11/2024 FILED BY THE COMMISSION
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.
NO.591/2024 DATED 01/07/2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER ON
OP(KAT)379 OF 2025 DATED 12/09/2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(b) The true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No.
4340/2018/G.Edn dated 24.10.2018
Exhibit R1(c) The true copy of the G.O.(P) No.
14/2020/G.Edn dated 30.09.2020
Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of G.O.(Ms) No. 119/2017/H.Edn
dated 02.05.2017
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 429 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION-CATEGORY NO
490/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
GAZETTE DATED 30-11-2022.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) NO 53/2009 H.EDN DATED
9TH JUNE, 2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST WITH SL NO
85/2024/ERXVI, CAT. NO.490/2022 DATED
13/3/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11-6-2024 TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.
Annexure A4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11-6-2024 TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.
Annexure A4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11-6-2024 TO THE 3RD APPLICANT.
Annexure A4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11-6-2024 TO THE 4TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11-6-2024 TO THE 5TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11-6-2024 TO THE 6TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A4(f) RUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 6-2024 TO THE 7TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A4(g) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11-6-2024 TO THE 8TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19/6/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST
APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18/6/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND
APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18/6/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD
APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18/6/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 6/5/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 5TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19/6/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 6TH
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19/6/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 7TH
APPLICANT
Annexure A5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED NIL AND
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 8TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.A.II/2/59/2013
DATED 13/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE NO. F.NO 3-
5/2022(DEB-III) DATED 2/9/2022 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/4/2024 IN
OA(EKM) 601/2024
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2024 IN
OA 1842/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.119/2017/HEDN DATED
02.05.2017.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST BEARING NO.
1210/2024/SSVI ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
CATEGORY NO. 490/2022 W.E.F 05/12/2024.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.84/251/2024-HEDN
DATED 16.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
AS PER THE RTI ACT IN R/1
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AS PER THE RTI ACT NO.
IDSI(4)/1157198/2025/GW DATED 07/05/2025.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AS PER THE RTI ACT NO. IDS-1(3)-
1143482/2025/GW DATED 15/04/2025.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.1001/2024 FILED BY
THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. IN O.A. NO.1001/2024
DATED 16/12/2024 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 23/01/2025
FILED BY THE APPLICANTS
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. IN O.A. NO.1001/2024
DATED 26/05/2025
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.
NO.1001/2024 DATED 01/07/2025
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No.
4340/2018/G.Edn dated 24.10.2018
Exhibit R1(b) The true copy of the G.O.(P) No.
14/2020/G.Edn dated 30.09.2020
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 434 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION - CATEGORY NO.
494/2020 ISSUED BY KPSC DATED NIL.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST WITH SL NO 35/2023/DOR
CAT NO.494/2020 DATED 01.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE
KPSC THRISSUR
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE STATUS PAGE OF
REMYA S.N..
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 27.09.2024
APPLICANT FILED TO THE CHAIRMAN PSC.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. 103095 DATED
25.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE MAHATHMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE F. NO. 3-5/2022
(DEB-III) DATED 02.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2024 IN OA(ΕΚΜ)
601/2024 ISSUED BY THE KAT ADDITIONAL BENCH EKM.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES GIVEN UNDER RTI ACT
NO. IDSII(4)/1066062/2024/GW DATED 19.12.2024
ISSUED TO LAKSHMI PRIYA BY UNDER SECRETARY & STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KPSC.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST BEARING
NO.1228/2024/SSV ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
CATEGORY NO.494/2020 W.E.F. 07.12.2024.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 IN OA
1842/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION THE O.A. NO.1530/2024
FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
COMMISSION IN JANUARY, 2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A FILED BY THE APPLICANT ON OA
1530 OF 2024
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO.1530/2024
DATED 01/07/2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No. 4340/2018/G.Edn
dated 24.10.2018
Exhibit R1(b) The true copy of the G.O.(P) No. 14/2020/G.Edn
dated 30.09.2020
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 436 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION-CATEGORY NO.
494/2020 ISSUED BY KPSC, DATE 3-2-2021 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF B.TECH CERTIFICATE (COMPUTER
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING)
NO.42513802/42513305/14400030 DATE 13/7/2022
ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA (FACULTY
OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY).
Annexure A2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BLIS. DEGREE CERTIFICATE
NO.00855181017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA (FACULTY OF ARTS).
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF SHORT LIST WITH SL NO
33/2023/DOE CAT NO 494/2020 DATED 16/10/2023
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY CALL LETTER NO. E5-1/13/2019-KPSC
DO EKM DATE 25-9-2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO
1172/2024/SSVCAT NO 494/2020. WEF 25-11-2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/11/2024
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS)NO 119/2017/HEDN
DATED 2-5-2017.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.1842/2024 FILED BY
THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.
NO.1842/2024 DATED 01/07/2025
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
12/09/2025 IN O.P(KAT) NO.379/2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No.
4340/2018/G.Edn dated 24.10.2018
Exhibit R1(b) The true copy of the G.O.(P) No. 14/2020/G.Edn
dated 30.09.2020
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 439 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION-CATEGORY
NO.494/2020-497/2020 ISSUED BY KPSC.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST WITH SL NO
41/23/DOT CAT NO 494/2020 DATED 13/10/2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF THE STATUS PAGE OF
LEKSHMY PRIYA.
Annexure A3(a) TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF THE STATUS PAGE OF
SALIJA.S..
Annexure A3(b) TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF THE STATUS PAGES
OF REJITHA.R..
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19/6/2024
FILED BY LEKSHMY PRIYA.M TO THE CHAIRMAN PSC
AGAINST THE ANNEXURE A3 STATUS.
Annexure A4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28/9/2024
FILED BY SALIJA. S TO THE CHAIRMAN PSC
AGAINST THE ANNEXURE A3A STATUS.
Annexure A4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26/9/2024
FILED BY REJITHA R. TO THE CHAIRMAN PSC
AGAINST THE ANNEXURE A3B STATUS.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LEKSHMIPRIYA
NO.64103/ AC ALL/2023 UOK DATED 20/3/2024
ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Annexure A5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALIJA
NO.64103/ AC.ALL/ 2023 UOK DATED 12/2/2024
ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
Annexure A5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REJITHA
NO.64103/ AC. ALL/ 2023 UOK DATED 11/3/2024
ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE, F.NO 3-
5/2022(DEB-III) DATED 2-9-2022 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION..
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/4/2024 IN
OA(EKM) 601/2024
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 IN
OA 1842/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES GIVEN UNDER
RTI ACT NO.ID SII(4)/1066062/2024/GW DATED
19.12.2024 ISSUED TO LAKSHMIPRIYA BY UNDER
SECRETARY AND STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST BEARING
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
NO.1143/2024/SSII ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT CATEGORY NO.494/2020, W.E.F.
18.11.2024.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.1536/2024 FILED BY
THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
BY THE COMMISSION IN JANUARY 2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.
NO.1536/2024 DATED 01/07/2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No.
4340/2018/G.Edn dated 24.10.2018
Exhibit R1(b) The true copy of the G.O.(P) No.
14/2020/G.Edn dated 30.09.2020
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 441 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION-CATEGORY NO.
490/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
GAZETTE DATED 30-11-2022
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO. 53/2009 H.EDN
DATED 9TH JUNE, 2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST WITH SL
NO.85/2024/ERXVI, CAT. NO. 490/2022 DATED
13/03/2024 ISSUED BY THE LST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11.06.2024 TO THE APPLICANT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12/06/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE APPLICANT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.A.II/2/59/2013
DATED 13/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE NO.F.NO. 3-
5/2022(DEB-III) DATED 02/09/2022 ISSUED BY
THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERDATED 28/06/2024 IN OA
1001/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERDATED 10/12/2024 IN OA
1842/2024 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.1062/2024 FILED BY
THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.
NO.1062/2024 DATED 01/07/2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No.
4340/2018/G.Edn. dated 24.10.2018
Exhibit R1(b) The true copy of the G.O.(P) No.
14/2020/G.Edn dated 30.09.2020
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 456 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION-CATEGORY NO
490/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
GAZETTE DATED 30-11-2022
Annexure A2 TRUE COPYOFTHE GO (P) NO 53/2009 H.EDN DATED
9TH JUNE, 2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST WITH SL NO
85/2024/ERXVI, CAT. NO. 490/2022 DATED
13/3/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11 6-2024 TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.
Annexure A4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REJECTION
MESSAGE DATED 11 6-2024 TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 09/08/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST
APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05/08/2024
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND
APPLICANT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE NO.
FILE NO EQ2024/31204 DATED 31/1/2024 ISSUED
BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE, F. NO 3-
5/2022(DEB-III) DATED 2.9-2022.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERDATED 28/6/2024 IN OA
1001/2024 OF THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/12¢024 IN OA
1842/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.1316/2024 FILED BY
THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.
NO.1316/2024 DATED 01/07/2025
OP(KAT) Nos.379, 400, 429,434, 436,
439, 441 and 456 of 2025 2026:KER:6103
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of the G.O.(Ms) No.
4340/2018/G.Edn dated 24.10.2018
Exhibit R1(c)
The true copy of Circular No.KRB/893/2025-
GSO6 dated 20-5-2025 issued by the Chancellor
Exhibit R1(b) The true copy of the G.O.(P) No.
14/2020/G.Edn dated 30.09.2020
