The Kerala High Court has clarified a critical boundary in public recruitment law: equivalence of academic qualifications does not automatically satisfy statutory mandates requiring a regular course of study. This judgment resolves a recurring conflict between academic flexibility and rigid eligibility criteria in government appointments, setting a binding precedent for all state service commissions in India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the rejection of eight candidates’ applications for the post of Librarian Grade-IV in Kerala’s Municipal and Common Pool Library services. The applicants held a Bachelor’s Degree in Library and Information Science (BLISc) obtained through distance education from recognized institutions such as the University of Kerala’s School of Distance Education and IGNOU. They produced equivalency certificates issued by universities in Kerala, affirming that their distance education degrees were academically equivalent to the regular BLISc degree. Despite clearing the written examination and being provisionally shortlisted, their candidatures were rejected on the ground that the qualification was not acquired through a "regular course of study" as stipulated in the recruitment notifications.
Procedural History
- 2020 and 2022: Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued notifications for Librarian Grade-IV posts, requiring candidates to possess a BLISc degree acquired after a "regular course of study" from a university in Kerala or one recognized as equivalent.
- 2024: Applicants filed Original Applications before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, challenging their rejection.
- 01.07.2025: The Tribunal allowed the applications, holding that equivalency certificates from recognized universities satisfied the qualification requirement.
- 29.01.2026: KPSC filed writ petitions under Article 227 before the Kerala High Court, challenging the Tribunal’s order.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the Tribunal’s order and uphold the rejection of applicants’ candidatures. The respondents sought inclusion in the final merit list and issuance of appointment advice based on their ranks.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an equivalency certificate issued by a university in Kerala, recognizing a distance education BLISc degree as academically equivalent to a regular BLISc degree, satisfies the statutory requirement that the qualification must be acquired "after undergoing a regular course of study."
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner (KPSC)
KPSC contended that the phrase "regular course of study" in the notification was not merely academic but a substantive eligibility criterion rooted in the statutory Special Rules framed under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. Relying on Shine Bose v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Asha K v. State of Kerala, it argued that the intent behind the rule was to ensure that candidates for teaching and library positions - roles demanding structured academic training - possess qualifications obtained through full-time, in-person instruction. The State, as employer, has the authority to prescribe such conditions to maintain service standards. Equivalency, it submitted, cannot override the explicit requirement of regular study; otherwise, it would create an irrational dichotomy where candidates from within Kerala must study regularly, while those from outside need not.
For the Respondents (Applicants)
The applicants argued that the equivalency certificates issued by the University of Kerala and Mahatma Gandhi University were legally valid and binding academic determinations. They relied on Jaiveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh, asserting that once a university recognizes a distance education degree as equivalent to a regular degree, the distinction becomes legally irrelevant. The Government of Kerala’s 2017 order recognizing equivalence between distance and regular BLISc courses further supported their claim. They contended that the Tribunal correctly applied the principle that equivalence, when formally granted, must be accepted as fulfilling the qualification.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and contextual analysis of the notification’s note appended to Clause (7). It emphasized that the phrase "acquired after undergoing a regular course of study" was not ambiguous and could not be diluted by subsequent administrative recognition of equivalence. The Court observed that the Special Rules governing the post were statutory in nature and could not be overridden by executive orders or university equivalency certifications.
"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 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 Court distinguished Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, where the absence of a formal equivalency resolution invalidated the claim, and Manjit Singh, which affirmed that commissions must adhere to government-prescribed qualifications. It held that while universities may determine academic equivalence, they cannot alter the statutory conditions of eligibility set by the State. The Court further relied on Nagaland Public Service Commission v. State of Nagaland to reinforce that recruiting authorities cannot expand or reinterpret prescribed qualifications.
The Tribunal’s error lay in conflating academic equivalence with statutory compliance. Equivalence, the Court held, is a technical academic determination, but eligibility is a legal condition. The State’s policy choice to require regular study for librarian positions - given the nature of the duties - was entitled to judicial deference.
The Verdict
The Kerala High Court allowed the petitions. It set aside the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the original applications. The Court held that equivalency certificates alone cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of a "regular course of study" unless the equivalence explicitly incorporates the mode of study. The applicants’ candidatures were rightly rejected.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equivalency Does Not Override Statutory Mode Requirements
- Practitioners must now distinguish between academic equivalence and statutory eligibility criteria in recruitment notifications.
- A university’s recognition of a distance degree as equivalent does not, by itself, make it compliant with rules mandating "regular study."
- Any challenge to rejection must first establish whether the notification’s language permits equivalency to substitute for the prescribed mode.
Government Orders Cannot Dilute Special Rules
- Executive orders or circulars issued by the State Government cannot override statutory Special Rules framed under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968.
- If a rule requires "regular study," even a government notification recognizing equivalence for other purposes (e.g., promotions) cannot be invoked to bypass this condition.
- Practitioners should scrutinize whether the rule is statutory or merely advisory before arguing for relaxation.
Judicial Deference to Recruitment Policy
- Courts will not substitute their judgment on the appropriateness of requiring regular study for professional posts.
- The Court reaffirmed that the State, as employer, has wide discretion to prescribe qualifications based on job functionality, aptitude, and course content, as held in Jaiveer Singh.
- Challenges to eligibility criteria on grounds of "discrimination" or "outdated norms" are unlikely to succeed unless the criterion is arbitrary or violative of Article 14.
