The Supreme Court delivered a scathing critique of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) over its erratic decision-making regarding the required qualifications for the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) position in the Kerala Water Authority. The Commission’s inconsistent policies have left nearly twelve hundred candidates embroiled in uncertainty and prolonged legal battles.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar condemned the KPSC for initially asserting that a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) would not qualify candidates for the LDC post. The Commission later reversed course, declaring that DCA holders were eligible—an abrupt shift that undermined trust and clarity. The Court underscored the need for steadfast, transparent norms in public service recruitment, criticizing the KPSC for its arbitrary and unexamined policy changes.
In a blistering statement, the Court emphasized that public entities like the KPSC must uphold high standards of integrity, avoiding ambiguity or falsehoods. “The blame for this chaos falls squarely on the KPSC. Its shifting stances have jeopardized the aspirations of countless candidates. We hope this episode serves as a lesson, preventing future mishandling of public employment processes,” the bench remarked.
Highlighting the Commission’s lack of foundational inquiry before altering qualifications, the Supreme Court described the move as whimsical, lacking the due diligence expected of a government institution. The ruling stressed that any deviation from established criteria must be backed by a compelling public interest, not arbitrary decisions.
The controversy traces back to a recruitment advertisement in which a DCA certificate was not initially listed as an essential qualification. Yet, when the ranked list emerged, DCA holders had been included, prompting objections from those without the certificate. The Kerala High Court had previously directed KPSC to revise the selection list, omitting DCA holders, and adhere to the original criteria.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforced the High Court’s ruling, asserting that the KPSC’s erratic behavior violated principles of fairness and predictability. The Court cited past judgments underscoring that regulatory bodies must not deviate from established practices unless justified by significant public interest.
In this legal battle, the Supreme Court has reasserted the importance of consistency and fairness in government actions, protecting candidates from the consequences of unpredictable bureaucratic decisions.
