Supreme Court of India
SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 950
- Decided
- 8 January 2015
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The appellants were fully qualified under the rules in force at the time of the 2008 notification, and their deletion from the ranking list was unlawful; they must be considered for appointment.
Summary
The case concerned the appointment of High School Assistant (Physical Sciences) in Kerala. The appellants, who held Chemistry degrees (some with post‑graduation) and B.Ed. in Physical Sciences, were initially placed in the Service Commission’s ranking list but later had their names deleted. The High Court and Tribunal held that, because the appellants did not have Physics or Chemistry as an ancillary subject, they were ineligible, relying on a 2009 government order. The Supreme Court examined the 2008 notification, which required only Physics or Chemistry as the main subject for graduation, and held that the appellants met this criterion and were therefore fully qualified. Consequently, the Court set aside the deletion of their names, restored them in the ranking list and directed the Commission to appoint them where vacancies exist. The appeals were allowed, with the Court emphasizing that the decision applies only to the facts of these cases and is not a precedent for future recruitments.
Issues considered
- Whether candidates with Chemistry as the main graduation subject and a B.Ed. in Physical Sciences satisfy the eligibility criteria for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Sciences) under the 2008 notification.
- Whether the requirement of an ancillary subject (Physics or Chemistry) is a mandatory condition for eligibility under the applicable rules.
- Whether the Service Commission’s deletion of the appellants’ names from the ranking list, after initially including them, is legally valid.
- Whether the ranking list prepared under the rules prevailing at the time of the notification must be honoured for appointment.
Subjects
service lawrecruitmenteligibilityranking listpublic service commissionappointmenteducation qualificationsphysical scienceshigh school assistant
Judgment
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 875
SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 226-227 of 2015 ETC)
JANUARY 08, 2015
B
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Service law - Appointment, to the post of High School
Assistant (Physical Science) - Eligibility - Invitation of C
applications for the posts - Qualification prescribed as per the
Rules, Physics or Chemistry as main subject for graduation
- Appel/ants-applicants, Graduates in Chemistry as main
subject and some of them post graduate in Chemistry -
Appellants also acquired B.Ed. qualification in Physical D
Sciences - Appellants having fully qualified as per the Rules,
names included in the Ranking List - Subsequently, their
names deleted from the list though identically qualified
candidates, placed in the list and appointed - Challenge to
- Tribunal as also Division Bench of the High Court rejected E
the claim of the appellants holding that appellants who were
qualified Chemistry/Physics Graduates/Post Graduates who
did not have either Physics or Chemistry as an ancillary
subject were ineligible - On appeal, held: Qualification
acquired by the appellants should enure to their benefit for F
the selection to the post - As per the Rule prescribed, the
second respondent-Service Commission having considered
their merits, included their names in the Ranking List, they
are entitled to be considered for appointments based on their
merit in the Ranking List - Further the said benefit was G
extended to those candidates in the Ranking List whose
names appeared in the beginning part of the same Ranking
List - Therefore, the deletion made by the second respondent
of the appellants in the Ranking List set aside - Names of
875 H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R.
A the appellants in the Ranking List restored - Respondents
directed to operate the said Ranking List on its own merit and
wherever the appellants are found suitable and vacancies
remain, appointment order to be issued expeditiously.
B CIVIL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
226-227 of 2015.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.06.2013 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP(KAT) Nos. 1643 and 1861
of 2013.
c
WITH
C.A. Nos. 228, 229, 230, 232, 236, 237, 238, 239 & 240-243
of 2015.
D V. Giri, C.S. Rajan, R. Basant, K. Rajeev, Shinoj K.
Narayanan, E.M.S. Anam, P.A. Noor Muhammed, Giffara S.,
A. Raghunath, Sajith P. Warrier, Dinesh Kothari, Raghenth
Basant, Hardeep Singh, Aditi Mishra, Senthil Jagadeesan, Roy
Abraham, Reena Roy, Seema Jain, Himinder Lal, Prasanth P.,
E V. Shyamohan, C.Y. Dhinoja, Liz Mathew, Vipin Nair, Mayank
Shrisagar (for Temple Law Firm) Ranjith K.C. for the appearing
parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
F ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard all the learned counsel for the parties.
G 3. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High
Court while confirming the order of the Tribunal held that in order
to be eligible to get appointed to the post of High School
Assistant(Physical Sciences), the selection of candidates
pursuant to the Notification dated 30th April, 2008 can be made ·
H
SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 877
& ORS.
only if the candidates had qualified the Graduation/Post A
Graduation either in Physics or if the concerned candidate is
a Chemistry Graduate, Physics as an ancillary subject. All the
appellants before this Court are stated to be Graduates in
Chemistry as main subject and some of them have also
acquired Post Graduation in Chemistry. It is also not in dispute B
that all the appellants have, however, acquired B.Ed.
Qualification in Physical Sciences. Keeping in mind the above
factor we have to examine the issue which has cropped up
before us.
4. By the Notification dated 30th April, 2008, applications
c
were called for, for the post of High School Assistant(Physical
Sciences) by way of District-wise selection. The required
qualification prescribed as per the Rule reads : "Physics or
Chemistry as main subject for graduation".[Emphasis added]
D
5. It is to be noted that apart from Physics or Chemistry,
Degree in Home Science was also prescribed as a
qualification for the post of High School Assistant(Physical
Sciences). It is, however, stated that by a Notification issued
on 25th November, 2009 Home Science was deleted as one E
of the qualifications for a candidate to be eligible to apply for
High School Assistant(Physical Sciences). The appellants
having been fully qualified as per the Rule, which was prevailing
at the time of the Notification dated 30th April, 2008, their
candidature was considered and it is common ground that in F
the Ranking List published on 14th June, 2011, 18th October,
2011, 28th November, 2012, 28th December, 2011, 4th
January, 2012, 2nd February, 2012, 6th February, 2012, 15th
February, 2012, 21st February, 2012, and 12th March, 2012,
their names were included in the said Ranking List.
G
6. Subsequently, when the names of the appellants were
deleted from the Ranking List, though some of the candidates
who were identically qualified and placed in the beginning part
of the same Ranking List, came to be appointed. The
appellants approached the Tribunal challenging the deletion. H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R.
A The Tribunal having declined to grant any relief approached the
High Court and by the impugned order the Division Bench also
declined to grant any relief.
7. While rejecting the claim of the appellants what weighed
B with the Division Bench of the High Court was the content of
the reasoning mentioned in the Notification dated 25th
November, 2009 in G.O.M.S. No. 2007 of 2009. In paragraph
2 of the said Notification it was stated as under:-
"2. Physics is one of the basic subjects of
c Engineering and Technology. For teaching Physics in
High School Classes, a thorough knowledge of the
subjects Physics and Mathematics is absolutely
essential. For B.Sc. Home Science (main), Zoology/
Botany and Chemistry are the subsidiaries. Therefore.
D teaching of Phvsics in High School Classes by a teacher
with B.Sc. Home Science (main). who has not studied in
Physics at graduate level is not desirable. It will adversely
affect the qualify of teaching Physics in High School
classes. '!Emphasis added)
E
8. The Tribunal as well as the Division Bench was,
therefore, persuaded to hold that the appellants who were
qualified Chemistry/Physics Graduates/Post Graduates who
did not have either Physics or Chemistry as ancillary subjects
were ineligible. Apart from the above referred to G.O., there
F was no other substantive objection which was placed either
before the Tribunal or before the High Court in order to disentitle
the appellants from challenging the order of deletion of their
names from the Ranking List.
G 9. When we heard learned counsel for the appellants, we
find that as on the date when Notification dated 30th April, 2008
was issued, the qualification as prescribed was Graduation in
Physics or Chemistry as main subject along with Bachelor's
Degree in Physical Sciences as a basic subject. Therefore
H going by the Rule which prevailed as on the date of the issuance
SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 879
& ORS.
of the Notification calling for applications, it is not in dispute that A
all the appellants were duly qualified to apply for the post and
the second respondent Public Service Commission also duly
considered their applications and all their names were ultimately
included in the Ranking List prepared by the second
respondent. Even, as on date, it is stated that the said B
qualification continued to remain for the post of High School
Assistant(Physical Sciences}.
10. Therefore, when we examine the relevant Rule, it will
have to be stated that the appellants were fully qualified and, C
were therefore, fully eligible to apply for the post and the second
respondent, therefore, was justified in having accepted their
applications and including their names in the Ranking List. Even
otherwise, in all the present cases, qualification of Physics or
Chemistry as ancillary subject which was required to be
considered as a relevant qualification, though the same was not D
strictly prescribed under the Rule, it is not in dispute that all the
appellants were all B.Ed. qualified candidates in Physical
Sciences. Therefore, such a qualification acquired by the
appellants should enure to their benefit for the present selection.
We, therefore, find that deletion of the names of the appellants. E
in the Ranking List was effected solely on the ground that they
did not possess Physics or Chemistry as ancillary subject along
with their main Degree/Post Graduate Degree in Chemistry or
Physics.
F
11. Therefore, without setting up as a precedent, in future
selections, the second respondent-Public Service Commission
can be directed to carry out the exercise of making the present
recruitment and appointment pursuant to the Not1ficat1on dated
30th April, 2008 considering the Rank List by strictly applying G
the Rules as it existed on the date of that Notification which
prescribed the qualifications. When the second respondent and
the State extended the said benefit to those candidates in the
Ranking List who were fortunate to have their names appear
H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R.
A in the beginning part of the same Ranking List, there is no
reason to deny the said benefit to those whose names
appeared in the bottom of the list.
12. We are convinced that the appellants should not be
8 deprived of their consideration for being appointed based on
the Ranking List already prepared by the second respondent-
Commission. In this respect it will also be relevant to note the
stand of the first respondent in the additional affidavit filed
before this Court on 4th September, 2014. Realising the
C strenuous exercise carried out by the second respondent-
Commission, the need for appointment of High School
Assistants which arose right from the year 2008 in the districts,
apparently the first respondent thought it fit to file the above said
additional affidavit taking the stand that the candidates included
in the Ranking List, in question, can be exempted from the
D purview of its own decision which it took with reference to the
Home Science candidates which was deleted from the Rule
providing for prescription of qualification for the post of High
School Assistants (Physical Sciences). While appreciating the
above-said stand, in the present juncture, we hold that going
E by the Rule prescribed by which the appellants were entitled
to apply for the post of High School Assistant (Physical
Sciences), the second respondent - Service Commission
having considered their merits, included their names in the
Ranking List, they are entitled to be considered for
F appointments based on their merit in the Ranking List. We are,
therefore, of the view that the deletion made by the second
respondent -Commission of the names of the appellants in the
Ranking List cannot be allowed to stand.
G 13. The orders of the second respondent - Commission
i.e. the Show Cause notices referred to in the Statement
hereunder pursuant to which the deletion of the names of the
appellants from the Ranking List mentioned against them came
to be deleted are set aside.
H
SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 881
& ORS.
A
s. Name of the Date of Show Date of
No. Appellant Cause Notice Ranking List
1. Swapna Sukumar 06.11.2012 12.03.2012
2. Naseera P.K. 13.03.2013 06.02.2012 B
3. Vinod Kumar 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
4. Jamsheena K. 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
c
5. Sheharban K. 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
6. Sumeera K. 13.03.2013 06.02.2012
7. Seenamol C.A. 30.04.2013 28.11.2012
D
8. Preetha G. Das 25.03.2013 18.10.2011
9. Riney George 20.04.2013 12.03.2012
10. Anish Kumar C.A. 20.04.2013 12.03.2012 E
11. Mumtaz K. 13.03.2013 21.02.2012
12. Ambily B. 27.03.2013 02.02.2012
F
13. Supreetha B. 07.06.2013 04.01.2012
14. Jisha B. 07.06.2013 04.01.2012
15. Jamna C. 07.06.2013 04.01.2012
G
16. Chitra M. 15.04.2013 15.02.2012
17. Gireesh K.M. 15.04.2013 15.02.2012
18. Sajira Beegum A. 15.04.2013 15.02.2012 H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 s.c.R.
A 19. Soudath T. 15.04.2013 15.02.2012
20. Jessy M.D. 09/09/2013 28/12/2011
21. Udaya K. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
B
22. Prameela T. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
23. Pushpaveni P.R. 20110/2011 14/06/2011
24. Prasanth Kumar 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
c
25. Rajesh Kumar S. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
26. Sheenappa B. 20/10/2011 14/06/2011
D 27. Archana T. 20/01/2014 28/12/2011
14. The names of the appellants in the Ranking List dated
14th June, 2011, 18th October, 2011, 28th November, 2012,
28th December, 2011, 4th January, 2012, 2nd February, 2012,
E 6th February, 2012, 15th February, 2012, 21st February, 2012,
and 12th March, 2012, shall stand restored and the respondents
are directed to operate the said Ranking List on its own merits
and wherever it finds the appellants suitable and vacancies
remain, appointment order shall be issued expeditiously. The
F first respondent and the second respondent-Commission shall
carry out the above-said exercise in accordance with the
procedure prescribed expeditiously preferably within a period
of two months.
15. We make it clear that we pass the above said order
G in the peculiar facts of these cases. This cannot be, however,
quoted as a precedent in future recruitments. Since the
appellants were fighting this litigation by approaching Jhe
Tribunal at the earliest point of time and have come up to this
Court, it is needless to state that the expiry of the Ranking List
H
SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 883
& ORS.
should not :;tand in the way for considering the names of the A
appellants for issuing the appointment orders in accordance
with the procedure prescribed as directed in this order.
16. IA 4 in appeal arising out SLP 14583/2014 is
dismissed with liberty to work out the remedy if any in
B
accordance with law before an appropriate forum.
17. IA 5 in appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25636-
25637 is an application for impleadment as party respondents
and the same is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.
The newly added respondent shall also be entitled to the same C
benefit which has now been granted to the appellants in these
appeals.
17. The appeals are allowed on the above terms with no
order as to costs. D
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search