Holding

The Court held that none of the conditions of Rule 10(a)(ii) were fulfilled; DHIC could not be treated as an equivalent or higher qualification, and the High Court’s decision was correct.

Summary

The appellants challenged the inclusion of candidates holding a two‑year Diploma in Health Inspectors Course (DHIC) in the short‑list for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade‑II in the Municipal Common Service, arguing that DHIC was a higher qualification and should be treated as equivalent under Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) had admitted DHIC candidates based on a three‑member committee’s comparative study and a communication from the State Government, which the Tribunal later directed to be excluded. The Supreme Court examined whether the committee’s report or the Government’s communication amounted to an executive order recognizing DHIC as equivalent, whether DHIC pre‑supposed the Sanitary Inspector Diploma Course (SIDC) prescribed for the post, and whether KPSC had complied with Rule 13(b)(i) to determine equivalence. The Court held that none of the conditions of Rule 10(a)(ii) were satisfied: there was no executive order, no KPSC determination, and no finding that DHIC pre‑supposed SIDC. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition was upheld. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the DHIC qualification can be treated as equivalent or a higher qualification under Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade‑II.
Whether the three‑member committee’s report and the State Government’s communication constitute a valid executive or standing order recognizing DHIC as equivalent.
Whether the DHIC qualification pre‑supposes the SIDC qualification prescribed for the post.
Whether KPSC complied with Rule 13(b)(i) in determining the equivalence of qualifications.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s direction.

Legislation cited

Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules, 1967s. Section 11
Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958s. Rule 10(a)(ii), s. Rule 13(b)(i)
Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

qualification equivalenceRule 10(a)(ii)Kerala Public Service CommissionDHICSIDCrecruitmentadministrative lawexecutive orderpre‑supposeselection criteria

Judgment

[2019] 11 S.C.R. 495 495

AJITH K & ORS. A
v.
ANEESH K.S. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6178-6185 of 2019)
AUGUST 21, 2019 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Kerela State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958: r. 10(a)(ii)
– Qualifications – Post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in C
Municipal Common Service – Qualification to the post of Inspector/
Food Inspector Grade II was Sanitary Inspector Diploma Course-
SIDC – Advertisement of vacancies – Candidates possessing the
qualification of Diploma in Health Inspectors Course-DHIC also
included in the shortlists – Challenge to, before the tribunal – During
D
pendency, three member Committee report that two year DHIC is a
higher qualification – Direction of the tribunal that shortlist of
candidates be recasted by excluding candidates in possession of
DHIC qualification – Writ petition by the affected candidates –
Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: None of the
conditions stipulated in r.10(a)(ii) have been fulfilled – There was E
no application of mind to the requirements contained in r.10(a)(ii) –
Reference to the diploma being an additional qualification or that
diploma being acceptable in the Health Department is an extraneous
consideration – There is no finding in the three member Committee
Report that the acquisition of the DHIC pre-supposes the completion
F
of the certificate course – There was no determination of equivalence
by any executive order or standing orders of the State Government
– Thus, the order of the High Court does not suffer from any error.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 On a careful analysis, it emerges that none of G
the conditions stipulated in Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerela State and
Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 have been fulfilled. The first
situation contemplated by Rule 10(a)(ii) is where qualifications
are recognized by executive orders or standing orders of the

H
495
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.

A government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post.
This is not satisfied. With reference to the second situation
contemplated in Rule 10(a)(ii) there was no determination by
KPSC in accordance with Rule 13(b)(i) of the equivalence of the
qualifications. Finally, the last condition contemplated in Rule
10(a)(ii) adverts to those qualifications which pre-suppose the
B
acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for a post. The
expression pre-suppose means subsumed in. All that is found
from the report of the three-member Committee are general
observations about the duration of the DHIC being longer, of a
similarity of the topics in the syllabi and a comparison between
C the number of theory and practical sessions. There has been no
finding that the acquisition of the DHIC pre-supposes the
completion of the certificate course. [Para 12] [504-F; 505-A-B]
1.2 The reference to the diploma being an additional
qualification is extraneous to Rule 10(a)(ii). The reference to a
D diploma being acceptable in the Health Department is again an
extraneous consideration. Ex facie, it is evident that in coming
to the conclusion extracted above, there was no application of
mind to the requirements contained in Rule 10(a)(ii). There was
no determination of equivalence by any executive order or
standing order of the State Government. Nor was there any finding
E that a DHIC pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower
qualification. KPSC has not carried out any exercise as required
by the provisions of the rule. The judgment of the High Court
does not suffer from error. [Para 16, 17] [507-D-F]
Jyoti K K v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
F 15 SCC 596 - distinguished.
State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2 SCC 170 ; Zahoor
Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC
404 ; P M Latha v. State of Kerala (2003) 3 SCC 541 :
[2003] 2 SCR 653 – referred to.
G
Case Law Reference
(2010) 15 SCC 596 distinguished Para 14
(2015) 2 SCC 170 referred to Para 14

H
AJITH K & ORS. v. ANEESH K.S. & ORS. 497

(2019) 2 SCC 404 referred to Para 14 A
[2003] 2 SCR 653 referred to Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6178-
6185 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2018 of the High Court B
of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (KAT) Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 &
86 of 2018.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Vinodh Kanna B., Mrs. G. Chitrakala,
Advs. for the Appellants.
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, C
Reegan S. Bel, Abhilash MR, Sayooj Mohandas M., Amith Krishnan,
Muthu Krishnan, Sudheesh K.K., Satya Ranjan Swain, Vishal Arun, C.
K. Sasi, Nayantara Roy, Abdulla Naseeh V.T., Vipin Nair, P. B. Suresh,
Karthik Jayashankar, Haris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Usman Ghani Khan,
Radha Shyam Jena, Ramesh Babu M. R., Ms. Swati Setia, Renjith B. D
Marar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Sadchith P. Kurup, Anil Sharma, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. This batch of appeals arises from a judgment dated 10 December E
2018 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. Affirming the
correctness of the judgment of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated
20 December 2017, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by
the appellants under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. On 16 August 1972, the Government of Kerala in exercise of F
its powers under Section 11 of the Kerala Municipal Common Service
Rules 1967, specified the method of recruitment and qualifications for
posts in the Municipal Common Service. The posts were specified in an
annexure to the order. The post of Health Inspector / Food Inspector
Grade-II was among those posts and the qualifications were: G
“Minimum general educational of S.S.L.C. Standard. Sanitary
Inspectors’ Certificate of Bombay or Madras; or Health
Inspectors’ Certificate of Trivandrum Medical College; or

H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.

A Sanitary Inspectors’ Certificate of the All India Institute of Local
Self Government, Bombay or the certificate in Sanitary Inspectors
course awarded by the National Council for Rural Higher
Education.
Age - Not below 18 years and above 30 years”.
B 3. On 26 December 2014, Kerala Public Service Commission1
advertised vacancies in nine districts for the post of Junior Health Inspector
Grade-II in the Municipal Common Service. The notification specified
the qualifications for the post in the following terms:
“ Qualifications:-
C
1. S.S.L.C.
2. Sanitary Inspectors’ Certificate of Bombay or Madras.
OR
Health Inspectors’ Certificate of Trivandrum Medical College.
D
OR
Sanitary Inspectors’ Certificate of All India Institute of Local Self
Government, Bombay.
OR
E
The certificate in Sanitary Inspectors’ Course awarded by the
National Council for Rural Higher Education.
OR
Sanitary Inspector’ Training Course conducted by the Rural
F Institute, Thavannur.
Note:-KS&SSR Part-II, Rule-10(a)(ii) is applicable for selection
to this post”.
The note above has some bearing on the outcome of the present
case.
G
4. On 29 May 2015, a notification was published for posts in five
additional districts. The qualifications for the post remained the same.
On 27 November 2015, a common written test was conducted. On 16
November 2016, KPSC published a list of selected candidates for the
1
“KPSC”
H
AJITH K & ORS. v. ANEESH K.S. & ORS. 499
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

district of Kottayam. Lists containing the names of candidates selected A
for other districts were also published. Candidates possessing the
qualification of a Diploma in Health Inspectors Course2, a two-year course
conducted by the Director of Health Service, were also included in the
shortlists. The DHIC was not one of the qualifications specifically
prescribed in the rules or in the advertisement. Candidates who claimed
B
to be affected by the inclusion of candidates possessing a DHIC
qualification filed cases before the Tribunal, challenging the State’s
decision to include persons possessing a DHIC qualification in the
shortlists.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal,
on 10 January 2017, a three-member Committee conducted a comparative C
study of the syllabi of the DHIC programme and the Sanitary Inspector
Diploma Course3. The Committee submitted a report holding that:
i) While the DHIC is a two-year course, the duration of the
SIDC (the certificate prescribed) is 52 weeks;
D
ii) While there are prescribed textbooks for the DHIC, no
recommended texts exist under the available syllabus for the
SIDC;
iii) The topics in both sets of syllabi are almost the same except
for some ‘minute differences’; and E
iv) While the number of theory sessions is greater in the DHIC,
the SIDC has more practical sessions.
6. On 20 February 2017, KPSC filed a reply before the Tribunal
stating that the two year DHIC is a higher qualification in the same
faculty and that it had accordingly been decided to consider candidates F
possessing a DHIC for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II by
adhering to the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Services Rules 19584. On 24 May 2017, the office of the
Director of Health Service addressed a communication to the Principal
Secretary, Local Self Government Institutions Department,
G
Thiruvananthapuram to consider candidates with a DHIC qualification
for the post of Junior Health Inspector in the Municipal Common Service.

2
“DHIC”
3
“SIDC”
4
“KSSSR” H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.

A On 7 July 2017, the Principal Secretary to the Government in the Local
Self Government (EU) Department addressed a communication to the
Secretary, KPSC stating that, in the view of the State Government, the
DHIC qualification can be reckoned to be a higher qualification in
comparison with the qualifications prescribed in the notification. The
Tribunal was subsequently informed of this decision.
B
7. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20 December 2017 allowed
the OAs instituted before it and directed that the shortlist of candidates
be recast by excluding candidates in possession of the DHIC qualification.
The Tribunal issued this direction after holding that KPSC had erroneously
entertained applications from holders of the DHIC qualification.
C Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court was invoked by candidates affected. The High Court
dismissed the writ proceedings holding that the report of the three-member
committee merely concludes that the DHIC is a ‘higher qualification’
than the certificate course, which is not sufficient under Rule 10(a)(ii) of
D Part II of the KSSSR. The High Court observed that the report does not
indicate that the acquisition of the diploma pre-supposes the completion
of the certificate course prescribed for the post. Moreover, the High
Court held that the entire exercise by the committee was carried out
after the publication of the shortlists by KPSC, and during the pendency
of the proceedings before the Tribunal. In this backdrop, it was held that
E the rules governing the process of selection could not be altered mid-
way. On this ground the writ petition was dismissed.
8. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, Mr S Nagamuthu,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that an
exercise was carried out under Rule 10(a)(ii) for the purpose of
F determining the equivalence of the DHIC qualification with the Sanitary
Inspector Certificate course originally prescribed for the post in question.
The notification inviting applications contained a specific reference to
Rule 10(a)(ii). Hence, it was urged that once the State Government
concluded that the DHIC was a higher qualification, the Tribunal should
G not have directed the exclusion of persons possessing the said
qualification. That apart, it was urged, relying on the decision of this
Court in Jyoti K K v Kerala Public Service Commission5 (“Jyoti K
K”), that if a person possesses a higher qualification in the same faculty,
such a qualification can be stated to pre-suppose the acquisition of the
5
H (2010) 15 SCC 596
AJITH K & ORS. v. ANEESH K.S. & ORS. 501
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

lower qualifications prescribed for the post. Learned Senior Counsel A
submitted that the judgment of the High Court is contrary to public interest
since holders of the DHIC qualification undergo a better course than the
SIDC which was prescribed as a qualification in 1972. Hence, it was
submitted that once a committee had, upon a detailed evaluation,
concluded that the DHIC course is a higher qualification, there was no
B
justification for the Tribunal to direct the exclusion of candidates
possessing the DHIC qualification.
9. Both the State Government and KPSC have supported the line
of argument put forth by the appellants. It has been urged on their behalf
that while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, the High Court has
only considered one aspect of Rule 10(a)(ii) – whether the higher C
qualification pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification
prescribed for the post – ignoring the other part which allows a
determination by KPSC under Rule 13(b)(i) of the Special Rules.
10. Mr V Giri, learned Senior Counsel supported the judgment of
the Tribunal and the High Court. He submitted that in the present case, D
there was no determination of the equivalence of the qualifications in
advance, and it was only during the pendency of the proceedings before
the Tribunal that such an exercise was carried out. Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the rules could not be changed mid-way. It has
been urged that the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II is available E
both in the Municipal Common Service as well as in the Health Services
Department. In the Health Services Department, the qualification for
the post is a DHIC, whereas in the Municipal Common Service, the
qualification for the post is generally, the Sanitary Inspector’s Certificate.
Hence, it was urged that there is a clear distinction between the posts in
the two departments. The SIDC, conducted by the Local Self Government F
Institutions, Rural Educational Department, and the DHIC, conducted
by the Directorate of Health Services, are designed keeping in view the
different duties and functions attached to those two posts in their
respective departments. Moreover, it was submitted that, responses to
queries under the Right to Information Act 2005 revealed that the DHIC G
course conducted by the Directorate of Health Service is not of a superior
qualification to the SIDC. In a communication dated 14 March 2017, the
Director of Urban Affairs specified that the DHIC programme conducted
by the Directorate of Health Services is neither an equivalent nor higher
qualification to the SIDC certificate course prescribed as a qualification
for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Municipal Common H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.

A Service. This was reiterated by the Personal and Administrative Reforms
Department on 16 May 2017.
11. The starting point of our enquiry in the present case is the
order of the State Government dated 16 August 1972, published in the
Kerala Gazette on 29 August 1972. It specifies the minimum qualifications
B required for the post of Health Inspector/ Food Inspector Grade-II. The
qualification prescribed is a Sanitary Inspector’s Certificate originating
in specified institutions. The DHIC is admittedly not one of the specified
qualifications for the post. Reliance was however placed on the provisions
of Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II of the KSSSR. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
C “10. Qualifications (a)
…
(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the
Special Rules, the qualifications recognized by executive orders
or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification
D specified for a post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable by
the Commission as per rule 13 (b) (i) of the said rules in cases
where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in
the rules and such of those qualifications which pre-suppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shall
E also be sufficient for the post.”
Rule 10(a)(ii) commences with a non-obstante provision. It
contemplates three situations:
(i) Qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing
orders of the government as being equivalent to a qualification
F specified for a post in the Special Rules; or
(ii) Qualifications found acceptable by the Commission in
accordance with Rule 13(b)(i) in cases where acceptance
of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the Special
Rules; and
G (iii) Qualifications which pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower
qualification prescribed for the post.
Any of these would be treated as sufficient for the post.
The Tribunal observed that although a diploma course could be
H treated as superior to a certificate course, to qualify under Rule 10(a)(ii),
AJITH K & ORS. v. ANEESH K.S. & ORS. 503
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the diploma course should be one which pre-supposes the completion of A
the certificate course. In that context, the Tribunal held:
“The post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II is available in
Municipal Common Service as well as in the Health Services
Department. The qualification prescribed for the above post in
these two departments differ. In the Department of Health B
Services, the qualification for the post of Junior Health Inspector
Grade II is a Diploma in Health Inspectors’ course whereas in
Municipal Common Service it is generally Sanitary Inspectors’
Certificate. There is, therefore a clear distinction between the
above post in these two Departments.”
C
The Tribunal noted that the duties and functions attached to the
Junior Health Inspector’s post in the Municipal Common Service are
distinct from those in the Health Services Department. Moreover, the
Tribunal noted that neither KPSC nor any duly constituted authority had
endeavoured to determine whether the DHIC is to be treated as a superior
qualification, the Tribunal held: D

“The question, therefore, to be considered is whether any authority
or the Public Service Commission itself has endeavoured to find
whether the qualification of DHIC could be treated as a superior
qualification which pre-supposed the possession of Sanitary
Inspectors Training Course. On winnowing through the pleadings E
and the materials on record, the answer is in the negative. Neither
the Public Service Commission nor the authorities concerned have
endeavoured to do so. The post that is notified is that of Junior
Health Inspector Grade II in Municipal Common Service and,
therefore, the question whether any other course could be treated F
as equivalent to the above course or whether any course could be
treated as a superior qualification which pre-supposes the
qualification of Sanitary Inspectors’ Course had to be ascertained
and declared by the administrative department or the appointing
authority. In the present case, the authorities concerned are the
Local Self Government Department and the Director of Urban G
Affairs. What is brought on record is a communication, Annexure
R5(a) dated 7.7.2017 issued by the Secretary, Local Self
Government Department to the Public Service Commission. The
Secretary, Local Self Government Department informs that the
Director of Health Services has intimated that the course H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.

A conducted by them i.e. the DHIC course could be treated as a
higher qualification to Sanitary Inspectors’ Certificate. According
to the Secretary, in the light of the above information considering
that DHIC qualification was prescribed for the post of Junior
Health Inspector Grade II in the health Service Department, it
could be viewed as a higher qualification to the qualification
B
prescribed for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in
Municipal Common Service. It is noted that Annexure R5(a)
communication only offers an opinion, it does not declare the above
course of DHIC to be a superior qualification. It also does not
consider the fact whether the possession of DHIC would pre-
C suppose the possession of Sanitary Inspectors’ course and whether
the Junior Health Inspectors post in the Directorate of Health
Services was a superior post to that of the Junior Health Inspectors
post in Municipal Common Service. Moreover,. Annexure R5(a)
communication, it is noted, is not an executive order coming within
the purview of Articles 162 and 166 of the Constitution of India.
D
Annexure 5(a) is in the nature of a communication expressing an
opinion to a query by the Public Service Commission. The same
does not declare DHIC course to be a superior qualification to
that of Sanitary Inspectors’ Course in accordance with Rule
10(a)(ii) and 13(b)(i) Part II KS&SSR.”
E This view of the Tribunal has been accepted by the High Court.
12. On a careful analysis, it emerges that none of the conditions
stipulated in Rule 10(a)(ii) have been fulfilled. The first situation
contemplated by Rule 10(a)(ii) is where qualifications are recognized by
executive orders or standing orders of the government as equivalent to a
F qualification specified for a post. This is not satisfied. With reference to
the second situation contemplated in Rule 10(a)(ii) there was no
determination by KPSC in accordance with Rule 13(b)(i) of the
equivalence of the qualifications6. Finally, the last condition contemplated
6
Rule 13(b)(i) provides thus:
G “13. Special Qualifications- No person shall be eligible for appointment to any
service, class, category or grade or any post borne on the cadre thereof unless he, -
…
(b) possesses such other qualifications as may be considered to be equivalence
to the said special qualifications or special tests-

(i) by the Commission in cases where the appointment has to be made in
H consultation with it; or…”
AJITH K & ORS. v. ANEESH K.S. & ORS. 505
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

in Rule 10(a)(ii) adverts to those qualifications which pre-suppose the A
acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for a post. The expression
pre-suppose means subsumed in. All that we find from the report of the
three-member Committee are general observations about the duration
of the DHIC being longer, of a similarity of the topics in the syllabi and a
comparison between the number of theory and practical sessions. There
B
has been no finding that the acquisition of the DHIC pre-supposes the
completion of the certificate course.
13. The decision in Jyoti K K concerned a situation where KPSC
invited applications for selection for the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical)
in the Kerala State Electricity Board7. The technical qualifications
prescribed were as follows: C

“2. Technical qualifications—
(a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognised institution
after 3 years’ course of study,
OR D
(b) a certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one of the
recognised technical schools shown below with five years’ service
under the Kerala State Electricity Board,
[Not fully extracted as not relevant]
E
OR

(c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with five
years’ experience as IInd Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the
Board.”
The appellants were B.Tech degree holders or Bachelor’s degree F
holders in electrical engineering. KPSC held that they were not eligible
for selection. The candidates contended that they were persons possessing
higher qualifications and hence could not be excluded. This Court
interpreted the provisions in Rule 10(a)(i) and held:
“7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a G
qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same
cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification
cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that

7
“KSEB” H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R.

A the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in
order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of
those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of
the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be
sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications
B
in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed
for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far.
8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer,
degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other
C equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been
prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be
held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an
indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification
than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of
D Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree
in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower
qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post,
shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.”
14. The above extract indicates that the qualification for the
E promotional post of assistant engineer was a degree in engineering.
Consequently, the acquisition of the degree was held to pre-suppose the
acquisition of the ‘lower qualification’ of the diploma prescribed for the
post of sub-engineer. This constitutes a distinguishing factor and hence
the decision in Jyoti K K does not apply to the present facts. The
decision in Jyoti K K was subsequently distinguished in State of Punjab
F v Anita8, as noted by this Court in a more recent decision in Zahoor
Ahmad Rather v Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad9. (See also in this context,
the decision of the two judge Bench in P M Latha v State of Kerala10.)
15. The Principal Secretary to the State Government (EU) in a
communication dated 7 July 2017 to KPSC stated:
G
“Though, diploma in Health Inspector course having a
duration of 2 years is not included in the qualifications

8
(2015) 2 SCC 170
9
(2019) 2 SCC 404
10
H (2003) 3 SCC 541
AJITH K & ORS. v. ANEESH K.S. & ORS. 507
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

required as per the notification for Junior Health Inspector, Grade A
II in Municipal Common Service, the PSC has included those
candidates having qualifications in diploma in Health
Inspectors Course shortlist of the said post by taking the
same as an additional qualification to the rest of qualifications...
Since in the circumstances that the report submitted by the Director B
of Health Department after conducting comparison study of
syllabus of both the course, the diploma in Health Inspectors
course is a higher qualification above the qualification
prescribed under the concerned special rule and that diploma in
Health Inspector course is accepted as a qualification to the
post of Junior Health Inspector in the Health Department, C
the diploma in Health Inspectors Course can be accepted and
reckoned as a higher qualification compared to the qualification
prescribed to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in
Municipal Common Service.”
(Emphasis supplied) D

16. The reference to the diploma being an additional qualification
is extraneous to Rule 10(a)(ii). The reference to a diploma being
acceptable in the Health Department is again an extraneous consideration.
Ex facie, it is evident that in coming to the conclusion extracted above,
there was no application of mind to the requirements contained in Rule E
10(a)(ii). There was no determination of equivalence by any executive
order or standing order of the State Government. Nor was there any
finding that a DHIC pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower
qualification. KPSC has not carried out any exercise as required by the
provisions of the rule. F
17. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that the
judgment of the High Court does not suffer from error. The appeals
shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending
application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
G
Nidhi Jain Appeals dismissed.

H