Introduction:

In the landmark case of Shifana P.S v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), affirming that a B.Sc in Polymer Chemistry is not equivalent to a B.Sc in Chemistry for the purpose of recruitment to the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science). The appellant, Shifana P.S., who held a B.Sc in Polymer Chemistry and a B.Ed in Physical Science, had been excluded from the merit list for the position advertised by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) in 2008. This exclusion was based on the grounds that her qualifications did not meet the required criteria set forth in the recruitment notification. Despite presenting a certificate from Calicut University claiming equivalence, her application was rejected by the recruiting authority.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Appellant’s Arguments:

Shifana P.S., the appellant, argued that her B.Sc in Polymer Chemistry should be considered equivalent to a B.Sc in Chemistry, as indicated by a certificate from Calicut University. She contended that her qualifications should have made her eligible for the advertised post of High School Assistant (Physical Science). The appellant pointed out that she also possessed a B.Ed in Physical Science, aligning with the notification’s requirement for a B.Ed in the relevant subject. She challenged the rejection of her application by the Kerala Public Service Commission and subsequently by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and the Kerala High Court, seeking judicial intervention to overturn these decisions.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State of Kerala and the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) maintained that the prescribed qualifications for the post were clear and explicit, requiring a B.Sc in Physics, Chemistry, or Home Science along with a B.Ed in Physical Science. They argued that it was within the purview of the recruiting authority to determine the equivalence of qualifications and that the judiciary should not expand or reinterpret these prescribed qualifications. The respondents contended that the certificate from Calicut University was not sufficient to establish equivalence and that the recruiting authority had the discretion to set and enforce qualification standards.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Hima Kohli, upheld the decisions of the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a particular qualification is equivalent to another is a matter for the recruiting authority to decide and not within the scope of judicial review. The bench referred to the precedent set in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others (2019), which stated that judicial review cannot expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications or decide their equivalence.

The Court also cited the judgment in Unnikrishnan CV & Ors. v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256, reinforcing that equivalence is a technical academic matter that should be determined by the academic body of the University through specific orders or resolutions. The Court noted that the recruiting authority’s decision not to accept the appellant’s qualification as equivalent was consistent with these principles.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s claim for equivalence, affirming that the appellant was not qualified for the post as per the 2008 recruitment notification. The judgment highlighted the settled principles of law regarding the discretion of the recruiting authority in determining qualification equivalence.