The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Kerala Public Service Commission’s policy of accepting qualifications higher than those prescribed in the recruitment notification for the post of Junior Nurse Grade II.
In the concurring opinions of the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal on Monday, Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol said they were “disinclined to interfere with this special leave application” after hearing counsel.
The matter concerns the notice dated 31 December 2012 requesting the recruitment of Junior Nurse II. This position required an Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM) certificate. However, one candidate named Elizabeth Thomas held a Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM), which is a higher qualification than the ANM certificate.
The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) had earlier refused to shortlist her due to “lack of qualifications”.
Earlier Supreme Court and Tribunal orders ruled in favor of Ms Thomas as her GNM certification was determined to meet the eligibility criteria.
In both the orders, the applicability of Rule 10 of the Kerala State And Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 was emphasized through another Supreme Court precedent as it was observed that holding a higher qualification may presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post.
Following these judgments, the PSC Academic Committee conducted a comparative analysis of the syllabi and recommended that the three-year GNM course be considered superior to the 18-month ANM course. The commission then issued executive orders giving general effect to the policy and extending it to all ongoing and future hiring for the position.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta and Advocate Vipin Nair appeared as counsel for the PSC.
During the proceedings at the Supreme Court, PBV lawyers emphasized that the commission proceeded in accordance with court guidelines and based its decision on a professional academic assessment. They also pointed out that most of the petitioners in this case were either appointed under the revised criteria or did not complete the selection process, leaving the court with no substantive complaint to deal with.
Published – 02 Feb 2026 23:54 IST