Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the issue with regard to equivalence of a degree is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed and any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta rejected a plea by Shafina PS against Kerala High Court's division bench order of October 16, 2012 which had dismissed her petition against the judgment of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal declining her any relief in the matter.

The appellant, who held a graduation degree in B Sc (Polymer Chemistry) and a B Ed (Physical Science), appeared in the written test on October 10, 2009 and cleared the exam for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science).

KPSC invited the appellant by a letter on October 3, 2011 for the interview requiring her to produce the equivalency certificate evidencing that B Sc (Polymer Chemistry) is equivalent to B Sc (Chemistry). 

The appellant claimed that the University of Calicut had issued a certificate verifying that B Sc (Polymer Chemistry) offered by the said University is recognised as equivalent to its B Sc (Chemistry) course for the purpose of employment and higher studies. 

KPSC released the final merit list. However, the appellant's name did not figure therein. The reasoning assigned for excluding her name was that the High Court of Kerala had held in the case of A Suma Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors (2010) that under the scheme of Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, the KPSC is incompetent to deal with the question of ‘equivalence’ of educational or other qualifications prescribed by the special rules, unless the special rules provide for the recognition of qualifications other than those prescribed. 

After hearing the counsel, the bench said, "Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008 was a degree in B Sc (Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant does not hold such a degree. It is the case of the appellant that B Sc (Polymer Chemistry) degree acquired by her is required to be treated as equivalent to a degree in B Sc (Chemistry). However, the said argument does not hold water and is misconceived."

The bench also pointed out in the case of 'Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Other Vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others' (2019), the apex court held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.

It also relied upon the 'Unnikrishnan CV and Others Vs Union of India and Others (2023), a three Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University Vs Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another (2009) held 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 specific order or resolution, duly published.

The court held that the plea by the appellant that University of Calicut had issued a certificate on October 10, 2011 verifying that B Sc (Polymer Chemistry) course of the said University is recognised as equivalent to its B Sc (Chemistry) course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV. 

"In view of the settled principles of law flowing from these precedents, we are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for the post advertised. As a result, we find no justifiable reason so as to interfere with the judgment rendered by the High Court," the bench dismissed the appeal as lacking in merit.