JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. These three batches of original petitions arise from different orders of the Tribunal, along with a writ appeal from a judgment of a Single Bench of this Court. The common issue in all these cases pertains to the recurring controversy surrounding the acceptance of qualifications, particularly those which presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for a post. 2. The dispute gains prominence due to the fact that, in Kerala, recruitment continues to be governed by Special Rules or executive orders framed five to six decades ago, while university and college courses have significantly evolved over time to meet the demands of the modern job market. Although the Government is aware of this issue, no steps have been taken either to update the prescribed qualifications or to modify the general rules under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR) in a manner consistent with present-day educational and employment trends. Another reason for this issue is that the Government departments can identify the higher qualifications that presuppose the lower ones, even before issuing the requisition. However, the Government departments initiating such recruitment seldom undertake this exercise. Consequently, litigations have flooded the Courts, creating a state of administrative uncertainty, with the future of many candidates left hanging in the balance. 3. We have chosen to mention this prelude to highlight the complexity of the issue, reflected by the plethora of precedents cited before us. These precedents point to a lack of clarity in the interpretation and application of qualifications prescribed under decades-old rules. If the Government continues in its inaction, such litigation is bound to increase, adversely affecting public administration, which is already in dire need of qualified personnel. 4. The Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 , were enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and provide the general framework governing public service and conditions of service in the State. Rule 10 of Part II of KS&SSR is related to qualification. 4. The Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 , were enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and provide the general framework governing public service and conditions of service in the State. Rule 10 of Part II of KS&SSR is related to qualification. Rule 10(a)(ii) therein states as follows: (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification 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 also be sufficient for the post. 5. The above rule contemplates three aspects of qualifications: i) Qualifications recognised by executive or standing orders of the Government as equivalent for a post; ii) Qualifications found acceptable by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in accordance with Rule 13(b)(i) of the KS&SSR in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the Special Rules; and iii) Qualifications that presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. 6. With regard to qualification under clause (i), it is well settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Suma A. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [ 2011 (1) KHC 16 ] that only the Government has the authority to declare a qualification as equivalent. The PSC does not have this power. 7. However, the present dispute revolves around clause (iii)—qualifications that presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. Upon examining the above Rule, we find that it does not expressly state that only the Government has the authority to determine whether a higher qualification can be treated as presupposing a lower one. In such cases, the PSC, as the recruiting authority, must also be considered competent to be satisfied as to whether the higher qualification implicitly presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification. At the same time, the employer has an undeniable right to assess the suitability and sufficiency of the qualifications of the aspirants to public employment. In such cases, the PSC, as the recruiting authority, must also be considered competent to be satisfied as to whether the higher qualification implicitly presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification. At the same time, the employer has an undeniable right to assess the suitability and sufficiency of the qualifications of the aspirants to public employment. This also leads to a further complication: if the Government later decides that a particular higher qualification does not presuppose the lower prescribed qualification, what would be the effect on an ongoing recruitment process initiated by the PSC? Similarly, what would be the effect in case of a conflict of opinion between the Government and the PSC? 8. In light of these considerations, the following three issues arise for general determination before examining the facts of each batch of cases: i. Who are the competent authorities under Rule 10(a)(ii) to decide and be satisfied with a qualification that presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, and who is the final authority to make such a decision? ii. What are the criteria to determine whether a higher qualification presupposes the lower prescribed qualification? iii. What is the effect of a decision by the Government or the PSC regarding such qualifications on an ongoing recruitment process? 9. These questions are crucial in delineating the scope of judicial review. The Courts and Tribunals often step into these controversies as though they are the primary decision-making authority. However, where a competent authority has taken a reasoned decision on the sufficiency of qualifications, the scope of judicial review is limited, particularly because Courts and Tribunals are not experts in evaluating academic qualifications. Judicial intervention is warranted only when such decisions are taken on extraneous considerations or suffer from manifest arbitrariness. Point No.1: The authority to decide upon qualification, which presupposes a lower qualification. 10. The Kerala Public Service Act, 1968 , is an enactment designed to regulate recruitment and conditions of service of individuals appointed to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. The source of this legislative power is traceable to Article 309 of the Constitution of India . As the employer, the State Government has the authority to prescribe the conditions of service, including the qualifications required for recruitment. The source of this legislative power is traceable to Article 309 of the Constitution of India . As the employer, the State Government has the authority to prescribe the conditions of service, including the qualifications required for recruitment. In exercise of this constitutional power, the State has framed the KS&SSR under Article 309 of the Constitution, which prescribes the general requirements for various posts. This legislative framework reflects the State’s competence to assess and determine the sufficiency of qualifications for public service. Under Article 320 of the Constitution, the PSC is entrusted with the responsibility to conduct examinations and assist in the recruitment process for appointments to State services. Article 320 of the Constitution also mandates consultation between the State and the PSC on matters concerning methods of recruitment, principles for appointment, disciplinary control, and related service conditions. This constitutional requirement ensures coordination and mitigates potential conflicts between the State and the PSC. In practice, as mandated under the KS&SSR, the State Government, recognising the diversity and evolution of educational qualifications, is empowered to declare certain qualifications as equivalent to those prescribed under the Special Rules. There may be cases where a candidate holds a degree or diploma that is not specified in the rules but subsumes or presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification required for the post. This leads to the core issue: who has the authority to determine the sufficiency of such qualifications? While both the State and the PSC derive their respective powers from the Constitution, the Constitution entrusts the function of recruitment to the PSC. Therefore, the PSC must be satisfied that a candidate’s qualification meets the requirement, which includes cases where a higher qualification presupposes the lower one prescribed. This is reinforced by Rule 11(1) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 , which expressly vests the PSC with the authority to assess the sufficiency of qualifications of the candidates. At the same time, the State Government, as the appointing authority and employer, retains a prerogative in determining the qualifications it requires for a post. Thus, we hold that both the Government and the PSC have the authority to determine the sufficiency of the qualifications. 11. There is a possibility of a difference of opinion between the Government and the PSC regarding the satisfaction or sufficiency of qualifications. Thus, we hold that both the Government and the PSC have the authority to determine the sufficiency of the qualifications. 11. There is a possibility of a difference of opinion between the Government and the PSC regarding the satisfaction or sufficiency of qualifications. The scheme of the Constitution under Article 320 suggests that the State shall consult the PSC on the suitability of the candidates for public employment, indicating that such consultation is mandatory. However, the decision of the State, particularly on matters involving the equivalence or sufficiency of qualifications, must be recognised, as the power to prescribe and accept qualifications ultimately lies with the State. Thus, the decision of the State shall prevail over the views of the PSC. Point No.2: What are the criteria to determine whether a higher qualification presupposes the lower prescribed qualification? 12. Rule 10(a)(ii) of the KS&SSR contemplates a situation where a candidate possesses a qualification that presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for a post. This provision is based on the principle that certain qualifications, though not expressly mentioned in the rules, may still be considered valid if they logically include or imply the prescribed qualification. This provision is not about equivalency, but rather about acknowledging the existence of a qualification that includes the prescribed one, thereby satisfying the requirement in substance. The satisfaction referred to under Rule 10(a)(ii) is essentially the acknowledgement of the fact that the candidate’s qualification inherently includes the qualification prescribed under the rules through an administrative or quasi-judicial process. In contrast, equivalency refers to a distinct and formal process by which the Government, in exercise of its authority, declares a particular qualification as equivalent to the one prescribed. Unless such a declaration is made, a candidate’s qualification cannot be considered equivalent merely based on a personal or subjective assessment. The power to declare equivalency rests exclusively with the Government, and this declaration must be express and categorical. 13. Therefore, two different concepts emerge: I. Equivalency is a legal and administrative declaration by the Government, recognising a qualification as equivalent to the one prescribed for a post. II. The power to declare equivalency rests exclusively with the Government, and this declaration must be express and categorical. 13. Therefore, two different concepts emerge: I. Equivalency is a legal and administrative declaration by the Government, recognising a qualification as equivalent to the one prescribed for a post. II. The presupposition of a lower qualification, as envisaged under Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SSR, involves a factual enquiry either by the Government or the Public Service Commission (PSC) into whether a higher qualification inherently includes the lower prescribed qualification relevant to the post notified or as referred to in the Special Rules. Such an enquiry is essential, as it requires a conscious application of mind before deciding that a higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification, having due regard to the nature of the post and the qualification prescribed for the post. 14. Once such a factual finding is made that the higher qualification subsumes the lower, it is not open to the Government or the PSC to disregard such a qualification, unless it is shown that: ? The earlier acceptance was based on a mistake, ? The qualification has undergone substantive changes in structure, syllabus, or academic content, making it no longer appropriate to treat it as encompassing the prescribed qualification. 15. The test for determining how satisfaction as to sufficiency of a higher qualification that presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596] , wherein two key tests were laid down: 1. If a person has acquired a higher qualification in the same faculty, it is presumed that such a qualification includes the lower qualification, unless proven otherwise. 2. If for higher posts, a higher qualification is prescribed than for lower posts, and the recruitment is through direct entry, it nec- essarily implies that the higher qualification required for the higher post is deemed to be a higher qualification compared to that prescribed for the lower post. 16. Thus, Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SSR operates not as a source of equivalency, but as a means to recognise higher qualifications that logically and academically presuppose the acquisition of the prescribed lower qualification. 16. Thus, Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SSR operates not as a source of equivalency, but as a means to recognise higher qualifications that logically and academically presuppose the acquisition of the prescribed lower qualification. The power of both the Government and the PSC in this context is limited to conducting an enquiry to assess sufficiency, not to arbitrarily deny the applicability of a qualification that satisfies the rule’s standard. Point No.3: What is the effect of a decision by the Government or the PSC regarding such qualifications on an ongoing recruitment process? 17. The PSC, under its constitutional mandate, is required to be satisfied with the qualifications of candidates applying for public service posts. To discharge this function, the PSC constitutes an Academic Committee, which evaluates the sufficiency of qualifications, particularly, in cases where a qualification is not expressly listed but is claimed to subsume or embrace the prescribed one. In parallel, the State Government, acting through its administrative departments, also holds the power to declare qualifications as equivalent or sufficient. Rule 4 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala specifically emphasises such allocation as follows: “4. The Business of the Government shall be transacted in the Department specified in the First Schedule, and shall be classified and distributed between those departments as laid down therein.” 18. However, the crucial issue that often arises is the stage and timing at which this satisfaction or acknowledgement of sufficiency is recorded, especially in ongoing recruitment processes. As already adverted to, satisfaction as to sufficiency is not a casual determination; it is the result of a deliberate process of enquiry, assessing whether a given qualification logically includes or presupposes the qualification prescribed under the Special Rules. This process ensures objective decision-making and prevents arbitrary exclusions or inclusions. The central question is: Can the PSC or the Government, after issuing a recruitment notification, subsequently declare a qualification as sufficient or insufficient, thereby affecting an ongoing selection process? This precise issue was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Vivina V. V. and Others [2009 (2) KHC 282] , where it was held that such a decision can only have a prospective effect. This precise issue was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Vivina V. V. and Others [2009 (2) KHC 282] , where it was held that such a decision can only have a prospective effect. In other words, any determination regarding the sufficiency of a higher qualification which presupposes the lower qualification must operate only for future selections and cannot affect recruitment processes already initiated based on a prior notification. This principle assumes significance when examined in the light of Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The satisfaction regarding a qualification is the outcome of an enquiry into the factual sufficiency of that qualification. This inquiry operates in two dimensions: first, concerning the assessment of the prescribed qualification explicitly stated in the notification; this scenario covers the post-notification process; and second, in assessing whether a higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of the prescribed lower qualification. Such satisfaction must be reached before the issuance of the recruitment notification, either by the Government or the PSC, so as to ensure certainty and transparency in the recruitment process. This enables a level playing field, ensuring that all eligible candidates have an equal opportunity to apply without ambiguity or later dispute. Fairness, transparency, and predictability in recruitment procedures are integral components of this constitutional guarantee. The rule of law, which is a foundational principle of the Constitution, demands certainty in the application of legal norms, particularly those governing qualifications for public employment. Ambiguity or shifting standards would undermine the certainty, which is one of the key facets of the rule of law, resulting in unfair benefits to the candidates based on fortuitous circumstances. Accordingly, no candidate can be allowed to gain an undue advantage based on post-notification decisions regarding sufficiency of qualification. If a degree or diploma had not been acknowledged as sufficient as of the date of the notification, any later decision declaring it sufficient cannot retrospectively apply to the ongoing recruitment process. It can only apply to future selections. This approach safeguards not only procedural fairness but also ensures consistency and integrity in the public recruitment system, thereby upholding both Article 16 of the Constitution and the rule of law. 19. However, this may not be the case where the notification clearly stipulates a specific qualification or its equivalent. It can only apply to future selections. This approach safeguards not only procedural fairness but also ensures consistency and integrity in the public recruitment system, thereby upholding both Article 16 of the Constitution and the rule of law. 19. However, this may not be the case where the notification clearly stipulates a specific qualification or its equivalent. In such situations, a subsequent declaration of equivalency by the Government will not disentitle a candidate who applied for the post based on an equivalent qualification, if that qualification was declared as equivalent by the Government after the notification. This is for the simple reason that the notification itself is clear and certain in allowing consideration of equivalent qualifications. (see the judgment of the Apex Court in Praveen Kumar C. P. v. Kerala Public Service Commission [ 2021 KHC 7062 ] and the judgment of this Court in Sanjai A. T. v. State of Kerala [ 2024 KHC 1068 ] ) The subsequent declaration of equivalency can be considered only as an affirmation of the necessary qualification possessed by the candidate at the relevant time prescribed in the notification. Though this is not an issue here, it is discussed only to have clarity on the law for future selection. The process of declaring equivalency and the determination of sufficiency of a higher qualification differ significantly, particularly in regard to timing and stage. A declaration of equivalency can be made at any point in time, as it involves a comparative assessment of the syllabus or content of a course to determine whether it corresponds to the prescribed qualification. This is permissible, especially when the notification itself provides for consideration of equivalent qualifications. However, the satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of a higher qualification is different. It involves a fact-based enquiry into whether the higher qualification inherently includes the prescribed lower qualification. This is a process of discovering latent equivalence, undertaken in the context of the specific post and the rules governing it. It is not merely an academic comparison, but a purposive enquiry, focusing on the functional suitability of the qualification for the duties of the post, based on the rules prescribing the qualification. 20. We therefore endorse the views taken by the coordinate bench in Vivina (supra). Scope of Judicial Review in Determining Sufficiency of a Qualification 21. It is not merely an academic comparison, but a purposive enquiry, focusing on the functional suitability of the qualification for the duties of the post, based on the rules prescribing the qualification. 20. We therefore endorse the views taken by the coordinate bench in Vivina (supra). Scope of Judicial Review in Determining Sufficiency of a Qualification 21. Before proceeding to address individual batch cases, it is necessary to emphasise the scope of judicial review in matters involving the satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of a qualification, particularly where such satisfaction presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification required for the post. 22. As already noted, it is the Government or the PSC that is the competent primary authority to determine whether a particular qualification is sufficient. This includes examining whether a higher qualification inherently presupposes the lower prescribed qualification, based on the parameters discussed under point No. (ii) and the principles laid down in Jyoti (supra). Neither the Tribunal nor this Court can substitute itself as the primary authority to determine the sufficiency of qualifications. We have already underscored that the stage and time at which such satisfaction is reached are crucial. If neither the PSC nor the Government has made a decision for the determination of sufficiency, it is not open for the Tribunal or the Court to assume the role of the primary authority and interfere with the recruitment process initiated under a duly issued notification. To do so would offend the constitutional principle of equal opportunity. Candidates who choose to experiment by applying with unlisted or higher qualifications, and subsequently seek judicial intervention, may unjustly benefit from a fortuitous turn of events. Such interventions lead to systemic chaos: qualified candidates are denied timely appointments, and the recruitment process is unduly delayed or derailed. Accordingly, we are of the view that, in the absence of a decision by the Government or the PSC on the sufficiency of a particular qualification, judicial forums should refrain from stepping into the shoes of the competent authority. However, it is within the domain of judicial review to direct the Government or PSC to consider a particular qualification, especially where it is claimed to be a higher qualification that presupposes the lower one— but such a direction must be independent of the recruitment process already set in motion. 23. However, it is within the domain of judicial review to direct the Government or PSC to consider a particular qualification, especially where it is claimed to be a higher qualification that presupposes the lower one— but such a direction must be independent of the recruitment process already set in motion. 23. Judicial review is certainly available if it is demonstrated that the Government or PSC failed to apply the correct test [as indicated under point No. (ii)] or has acted on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. 24. It may not always be open for candidates to anticipate employment notifications prescribing specific qualifications. In such circumstances, to bring transparency and to ensure equal opportunity that the Government or the Department concerned, before making a requisition to the PSC, shall consider whether a particular higher qualification satisfies the requirement for the post. Where the Government does not do so, it becomes necessary for the PSC, before issuing the notification, to enter into such satisfaction. While this Court cannot compel the Government or PSC to adopt a particular procedure, we expect and trust that due care and foresight will be exercised to prevent avoidable litigation and delays in the recruitment process. 25. We have observed that in several precedents cited before us, Tribunals or Courts, after referring to various judgments involving distinct special rules governing qualifications (not one involved in such litigation), have often concluded that the qualification in question is not a higher qualification presupposing the lower prescribed qualification or vice versa. In our considered view, such an approach does not align with the proper scope of judicial review. The core issue to be addressed in such matters is straightforward: Did the Government or the PSC decide, before the issuance of the notification, regarding the sufficiency of the qualification? If such a determination is made, the scope for judicial review is necessarily limited. The Apex Court in Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. v. Anita Puri (Dr) [ (1996) 6 SCC 282 ], Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade [ (2019) 6 SCC 362 ] and Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar (Dr) [ (1994) 1 SCC 169 ] , ruled that it is the prerogative of the employer/recruiting agency to satisfy with the qualification prescribed for the post and the Court shall not substitute the views of the employer/recruiting agency. As we have already emphasised, the timing of the decision on qualification is crucial. In the absence of a prior determination by the Government or the PSC regarding the sufficiency of a qualification before the issuance of the notification, it would not be open to the Tribunal or this Court to direct that a particular qualification be accepted as sufficient on the ground that it presupposes the prescribed lower qualification. 26. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Elvin Peter and Dr. K.P. Satheesan, Shri George Poonthottam, Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, learned Counsel Shri S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, Shri Kaleeswaram Raj, Shri P. Nandakumar, Shri M.R. Hariraj, Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, Shri Millu Dandapani, Shri R. Parthasarathy, Shri K. Sandesh Raja, Shri Legith Kottakkal, Smt. A. Aruna, Shri Joseph George, Shri N. Anand, Shri Zakeer Hussain, Shri U. Balagangadharan, Shri Abi Benny Areeckal, Shri Sheejo Chacko, Shri Raphael Thekkan, Shri K.R. Ganesh, Smt. Neenu Pavithran, Smt. Jisha Shaji, Shri S. Aneesh, Shri Arjun Raghavan, Shri A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Smt. Thulasi K. Raj, learned Senior Government Pleader Shri A.J. Varghese and the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission Shri P.C.Sasidharan. We shall now deal with individual batch cases: Batch - I 27. Batch-I is related to appointments to the posts of Draftsman Grade III (Civil)/Overseer Grade III (Civil)/Tracer in Harbour Engineering Department pursuant to the notification dated 26/07/2018, III Grade Overseer/Tracer in Public Works /Irrigation Department pursuant to the notification dated 26/07/2018, Overseer Grade III/Draftsman Grade III/ Work Superintendent (Civil) for SC/ST in Harbour Engineering Department pursuant to the notification dated 29/12/2018, III Grade Overseer/Tracer (Civil) in the Public Works/Irrigation Department pursuant to the notification dated 31/12/2022 and III Grade Overseer/Draftsman Grade III in Local Self Government Department pursuant to the notification dated 30/04/2021. The Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1958 and similar Special Rules of various departments, prescribe the qualifications for the above posts. 28. The different notifications issued in the years 2018, 2021 and 2022 prescribe the following basic qualifications: a pass in SSLC or equivalent and must possess an ITI Certificate or KGTE, etc., without mentioning Diploma/B.Tech as a higher qualification. However, it is specifically mentioned that Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SSR would apply. 29. The candidates possessing the above qualifications approached the Tribunal seeking a declaration that a Diploma in Polytechnic and a Degree (B.Tech) are not prescribed qualifications for the posts in question. However, it is specifically mentioned that Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SSR would apply. 29. The candidates possessing the above qualifications approached the Tribunal seeking a declaration that a Diploma in Polytechnic and a Degree (B.Tech) are not prescribed qualifications for the posts in question. Subsequently, the Labour and Skills Department of the Government, acting on the report of the Technical Committee, issued an order dated 17/01/2023 reviewing its earlier stance. It decided not to recognise higher qualifications, such as a Diploma or Degree in Engineering, as sufficient for the said posts. However, the Public Service Commission (PSC), having already taken a decision to treat B.Tech/Diploma qualifications as sufficient, declined to give effect to the government order dated 17/01/2023 for the ongoing selection process. Instead, the PSC resolved to apply the said G.O. prospectively, only for future selections. The Tribunal sustained the challenge; this is how the Diploma or B.Tech holders and the PSC approached this Court, challenging the orders of the Tribunal. 30. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Elvin Peter, appearing for the Diploma and B.Tech holders, would submit that the Higher Education Department and universities are competent to decide on the sufficiency of qualifications, and having taken such a decision, any subsequent decision by the Labour and Skills Department after the notification shall not result in exclusion of Diploma or B. Tech holders. 31. The primary question that arises, therefore, is whether a higher qualification, such as a Diploma or B.Tech, had been recognised as a sufficient qualification for the post before the issuance of the aforesaid notifications. The government order issued on 17/01/2023 by the Labour and Skills Department itself implies that there was, at some earlier point, a decision recognising Diploma and B.Tech qualifications as sufficient for the aforementioned posts. Under the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala , the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department is the exclusive department entrusted with personnel and service matters. It is specifically mentioned in the Kerala Public Services Act that the general policy relating to the public service governing recruitment, qualification, etc., will have to be dealt with by that department. We find that no decision was made by the above department holding that a Diploma or B.Tech qualification cannot be considered as a qualification as per the special Rules. We find that no decision was made by the above department holding that a Diploma or B.Tech qualification cannot be considered as a qualification as per the special Rules. It is also pertinent to note that the recruitment pertains to posts under the Harbour, Irrigation, Public Works, and Local Self-Government Departments. There are also no materials or records of any independent decision taken by these departments regarding the sufficiency of higher qualifications. In any event, the Government’s revised decision by the Labour and Skills Department was taken long after the recruitment notifications were issued from 2018 onwards. At best, it can be considered as recommendatory for the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (competent department) to take a final decision on the matter. The Tribunal, in arriving at its conclusion, relied on the judgment of this Court in Muhammed Naeem V. T. v. State of Kerala [ 2023 KHC 769 ] and the government order dated 17/01/2023. From a review of various government orders, we observe a lack of uniformity in approach among different departments. Several departments, including the Higher Education Department, have made decisions either without reference to the relevant Special Rules or in conflict with the decisions of other departments. So also in this case, neither the Harbour Department, nor the Public Works/Irrigation Department, nor the LSG Department had previously taken a stand, declining to treat higher qualifications as sufficient. We find that the following government orders were issued by different departments holding that a Diploma or B.Tech is a higher qualification. These departments overlooked the fact that it has no competency to decide so. 32. The question is whether, in the absence of any decision taken by the department concerned, the PSC has taken a decision in the matter or not. It is apparent that the PSC has decided to treat Diploma/B.Tech courses as a higher qualification after the notification. The PSC in practice appears to be taking such decisions only during the scrutiny of the application. How far it would have an impact on the relief is a different issue to be considered by this Court in the light of Vivina (supra). The PSC has taken a specific stand that, applying the principles laid down in Jyoti (supra), it decided to accept a Diploma in Civil Engineering and a B.Tech degree as higher qualifications for the posts in question, treating them as sufficient. The PSC has taken a specific stand that, applying the principles laid down in Jyoti (supra), it decided to accept a Diploma in Civil Engineering and a B.Tech degree as higher qualifications for the posts in question, treating them as sufficient. The PSC considered and examined the issue with reference to the test laid down in Jyoti (supra). Further, the PSC has specifically asserted that one of the key tests laid down in Jyoti (supra) whether the qualifications are from the same faculty is satisfied in the present case. The posts in question are Draftsman Grade III (Civil), Overseer Grade III (Civil), and Tracer under the Harbour, Public Works, Irrigation and Local Self Government Departments. If the qualifications in issue are within the same faculty, there is no legal impediment to accepting them as higher qualifications. 33. Learned Counsel Sri. Nandakumar, who appeared for the applicant before the Tribunal relying on the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1958, contended that Diploma and Degree qualifications are not prescribed for the higher posts under the normal channel. Even if such qualifications are not prescribed for a higher post, that, by itself, is not decisive. What is relevant is whether the qualifications satisfy the test laid down in Jyoti (supra), namely, whether they belong to the same faculty and thereby presuppose the lower qualification. 34. The government order dated 17/01/2023 will not help the applicants before the Tribunal. Firstly, it was issued long after the notifications for recruitment were published. Secondly, it was not issued by the department dealing with the service matters, including recruitment and qualification. Thirdly, and most importantly, it does not appear to have applied the tests formulated in Jyoti (supra). Fourthly, it was decided without any specific reference to the Special Rules or executive order prescribing the qualification. Thus, another department of the Government cannot, by a subsequent order, take a stand that a qualification is insufficient unless it determines, through a proper application of the principles in Jyoti (supra), qua Special Rules prescribing such qualification. 35. As we opined in point No. (ii), the sufficiency of a qualification is a matter of determination with reference to the Special Rules or the executive order prescribing the qualification, as it involves an enquiry into the inherent inclusion of the prescribed qualification. 35. As we opined in point No. (ii), the sufficiency of a qualification is a matter of determination with reference to the Special Rules or the executive order prescribing the qualification, as it involves an enquiry into the inherent inclusion of the prescribed qualification. Thus, any decision of the Government or the PSC has to be based on such Rules or an executive order prescribing the qualification. 36. We also note that the government order dated 17/01/2023 appears to have been issued primarily in response to representations from candidates holding ITI qualifications, and seems to be based on equitable or moral grounds rather than a principled application of legal tests. 37. The Tribunal also wrongly placed reliance on the judgment in Muhammed Naeem (supra). The above case was related to different Special Rules and posts. This Court, in that case, considered the issue related to the sufficiency of qualification as provided in the Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service Rules, 2012 , in respect of the post of Meter Reader/Spot Biller. As we opined earlier, the scope of consideration must be limited to the Rule pertaining to the post, and cannot be based on a Rule applicable elsewhere. In this case, the Rules governing the posts are under the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1958 and similar Special Rules of the concerned departments. 38. Though the decision of the PSC was after the issuance of the notification, it correctly applied the principles in Jyoti (supra) to determine a higher qualification as a sufficient qualification. We, therefore, are of the view that it shall not unsettle a process already initiated merely for the reason that such a decision on sufficiency of qualification was taken after the notification, in the light of the judgment in Vivina (supra). Article 16 of the Constitution would operate to the benefit of those who were denied the opportunity to apply for the post. In these cases, those who have approached the Tribunal challenging the inclusion of B.Tech/Diploma holders are the ITI holders who had the opportunity to apply for the posts, and none of their rights are denied, and they have been equally considered along with Diploma and B.Tech holders. In such circumstances, we are not proposing to interfere with the decision of the PSC to include Diploma holders and B.Tech holders on the ground of violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. 39. In such circumstances, we are not proposing to interfere with the decision of the PSC to include Diploma holders and B.Tech holders on the ground of violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. 39. In such circumstances, the Tribunal could not have sustained the challenge to the PSC’s decision unless it had found that the decision was either contrary to the principles laid down in Jyoti (supra) or based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The Tribunal ought to have exercised judicial restraint and recognised the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. Judicial review cannot be exercised routinely to re-evaluate the decision of a competent authority (here it is PSC), especially when the department concerned has not taken any decision that higher qualifications are not sufficient, and also no decision was taken by the Government after evaluating the qualifications under the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service(General Branch) Rules, 1958 and similar Special Rules of the above departments. 40. In light of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Batch II 41. The second batch is related to the appointments to the post of Surveyor Grade-II in the Survey and Land Records Department. The PSC issued a notification on 31/12/2022. The qualifications for the above post, as per the notification, are a pass in SSLC, ITI (Surveyor Trade) or a pass in Surveying and Levelling (Higher) MGTE or KGTE with Chain Survey Test or experience in military service for a period of six years in Surveyor Trade. The PSC excluded Diploma holders and B.Tech Engineers in Civil Engineering for consideration of appointment to the above post. PSC’s stand is that the qualification possessed by such candidates cannot be treated as a higher qualification presupposing a lower qualification. The candidates who are excluded approached the Tribunal. They placed reliance on the following government orders acknowledging Diploma and B.Tech as higher qualifications. They also argued before the Tribunal that the government order issued subsequent to the notification by the Labour and Skills Department, dated 17/01/2023, cannot be relied on to hold that these candidates do not possess sufficient qualifications. 42. They placed reliance on the following government orders acknowledging Diploma and B.Tech as higher qualifications. They also argued before the Tribunal that the government order issued subsequent to the notification by the Labour and Skills Department, dated 17/01/2023, cannot be relied on to hold that these candidates do not possess sufficient qualifications. 42. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the interpretation of law in Janardanan K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2008 (3) KHC 299 ] , in respect of the very same post under the same rule, came to the conclusion that Diploma and Degree holders are not entitled to apply for the post. 43. The learned Counsel, Ms. Aruna B., appearing for the petitioners in some of the original petitions who were excluded from consideration, would argue that, in Janardanan (supra), this Court had no occasion to consider the scheme and the syllabus of the newly evolved Diploma and B.Tech courses, and therefore, placing reliance on Janardanan (supra) is legally unsustainable. It is submitted that the government orders referred above, considering the matter in threadbare detail after the Janardanan (supra), clearly established that the Government was satisfied with the sufficiency of a Diploma, B.Tech qualification for the above post. It is further argued that any subsequent order of the Government on 17/01/2023 will not disentitle those who had qualified at the time of the notification from being considered by the PSC. Learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, Sri P.C. Sasidharan, submitted that the law regarding sufficiency is laid in Janardanan (supra) and the PSC is bound to follow the dictum. 44. In this matter, we also had the advantage of hearing the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Benny Gervasis, who appeared for the ITI Certificate holders. They also filed an original petition for expeditious conclusion of the selection process. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Government order relied upon by the Diploma or B. Tech holders are not specifically dealing with the Special Rules related to the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules . It is further submitted that the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala never contemplate a decision being taken by one department in a matter related to appointments in another department. It is further submitted that the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala never contemplate a decision being taken by one department in a matter related to appointments in another department. The learned Counsel points out that the government orders issued by the Higher Education Department cannot have any impact on the assessment of sufficiency of qualification governed by the Special Rules of another department. 45. We have already dealt with this issue while dealing with the general aspects of sufficiency. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Benny Gervasis, the competent department to deal with the matter of qualifications, is the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. Further, none of the government orders relied on by the Diploma or B.Tech Holders are based on the Special Rules prescribing qualification under the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service. On the other hand, PSC relied on the judgment in Janardanan (supra) to exclude Diploma and B.Tech holders. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the test in Jyoti (supra), came to a definite conclusion in paragraph 5 as follows: “5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyothi's case (supra) held that if the higher qualification is obtained in the same faculty, that can be considered. Here, it is not in same faculty. Acceptance of the higher qualification when the qualification prescribed is the basic qualification for getting the higher qualification is legally permissible. But, I.T.I. Certificate in Surveyor Trade is not the basic qualification for getting admission to diploma or degree course in Civil Engineering. Therefore, holding of diploma or degree in Civil Engineering will not presuppose the acquisition of I.T.I. Certificate in Surveyor Trade. We are, therefore, unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 17496 of 2007. The learned Judge in that case also noticed that necessary pleadings were not made in that writ petition. We set aside the same and WA No. 2250 of 2007 is allowed. We fully agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in Sajans case (supra). All the appeals excluding WA No. 2250 of 2007 are dismissed. WA No. 2250 of 2007 is allowed.” 46. No doubt, the argument of Ms. Aruna is attractive. We set aside the same and WA No. 2250 of 2007 is allowed. We fully agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in Sajans case (supra). All the appeals excluding WA No. 2250 of 2007 are dismissed. WA No. 2250 of 2007 is allowed.” 46. No doubt, the argument of Ms. Aruna is attractive. If courses and syllabi have changed, the Government is free to take a decision based on the Special Rules as to the sufficiency of the Diploma or B.Tech qualification for the above post. For that matter, there must be an exercise on the part of the Government, and that too by the competent department. As we opined earlier, the Government cannot decide that a qualification is not sufficient which has been declared as sufficient or insufficient, unless it finds that the earlier decision, if any, treating a qualification as sufficient or insufficient was a mistake of fact or based on a reason that the syllabus and courses have changed after the earlier decision. In this case, the Government could not have taken a different view except based on the above principle. Thus, the Government could not have issued the subsequent orders referred to above, ignoring the dictum in Janardanan (supra). That is the reason why the PSC rightly rejected the candidature of Diploma/B.Tech holders. Anyhow, the subsequent government order dated 17/01/2023 cannot be pressed into service, as it was issued by a department which is not competent to take such a decision. Perhaps, we can say that, so far as the post in question herein is concerned, the government order dated 17/01/2023 is a reiteration of the law laid down in Janardanan (supra). Thus, we affirm the order of the Tribunal. Batch III 47. The third batch is related to selection for the post of Drilling Assistant in the Ground Water Department. The PSC issued a notification on 29/12/2018. The qualification prescribed is an ITI Trade certificate in diesel or motor mechanic. The notification itself stipulated that Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II, KS&SSR is applicable. The PSC excluded candidates who have higher qualifications, like a Diploma/B.Tech Degree in automobile/mechanical engineering after the conduct of the OMR test, and published a probability list on 29/12/2020. Challenges were made before the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) Nos. The notification itself stipulated that Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II, KS&SSR is applicable. The PSC excluded candidates who have higher qualifications, like a Diploma/B.Tech Degree in automobile/mechanical engineering after the conduct of the OMR test, and published a probability list on 29/12/2020. Challenges were made before the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) Nos. 141 & 142 of 2021 and O.A.(EKM) No. 149/2021 at the instance of the candidates who were excluded on the ground that they held Diploma/B.Tech degrees. Pending the challenge, the PSC academic committee discussed the matter on 28/09/2021 and decided to admit the candidates with higher qualifications for the same post. The Academic Committee was of the view that the higher qualifications are in the same faculty and, applying Jyoti’s test, these qualifications are acceptable. Accordingly, the probability list dated 29/12/2020 was cancelled to prepare a fresh probability list by including candidates having a Diploma/Higher qualification. 48. A challenge was made by the ITI certificate holders before the Tribunal, which was taken up along with the original application filed by the excluded candidates. The cancellation of the probability list was interfered with by the Tribunal for two reasons: i. The Ground Water Department had not taken any decision holding that higher qualifications are sufficient qualifications. ii. Further, it was found that PSC’s decision was after the notification, and it cannot make a change in the eligibility criteria for selection. 49. We have already found that the Government, as well as the PSC, are competent to determine the sufficiency of the qualification. Therefore, two questions arise: first, the scope of judicial review on the decision taken by the PSC. The PSC is the constitutional body, and it has decided by applying the test laid down in Jyoti (supra). The Tribunal, therefore, cannot overturn the decision of the PSC unless it finds that the test in Jyoti (supra) was wrongly applied. In the absence of any such finding, the Tribunal could not have reversed the decision of the PSC. Perhaps, the PSC might also have taken into consideration the government order dated 01/02/2021 issued by the Higher Education Department holding that Diploma and B.Tech in Automobile and Mechanical Engineering constitute higher qualifications than the ITI in Diesel/Mechanical course. Though this department is not the competent authority, nevertheless, it is to be assumed that PSC’s decision was not without any basis. Though this department is not the competent authority, nevertheless, it is to be assumed that PSC’s decision was not without any basis. The finding of the Tribunal that the decision has to be taken by the relevant Department (Ground Water Department) based on the judgment in Ajith K. and Others v. Aneesh K. S. and Others [2019 KHC 6830] is legally unsustainable. The Apex Court in the above judgment noted that apart from the Government, the PSC also had not carried out any exercise to hold that a higher degree referred to therein necessarily presupposes the prescribed qualification (See paragraph 16 of the above judgment). Therefore, if the competent body is of the opinion that a higher qualification is to be treated as a sufficient qualification, such a decision cannot be interfered with lightly without reference to the decision-making process of such a body. 50. The second question that would arise is whether the subsequent decision of the PSC during the scrutiny stage or at a later stage, holding that a higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification, would benefit a few who have applied pursuant to the notification. In fact, we dealt with this issue in the first batch of cases. We cannot approve such an act of the PSC. Nevertheless, we found that the decision taken subsequently cannot result in derailing a selection process. The issue between the applicants before the Tribunal is in regard to the sufficiency of the qualification and not based on any claim based on Article 16 of the Constitution. In every lis , the Tribunal or the Court should confine its scope with respect to the rights of the parties involved and not beyond such as in public interest litigation. In such circumstances, we need not interfere with the decision of the PSC as it will not infringe any of the rights of the applicants before the Tribunal. 51. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. W.A. No. 1614/2022 52. The point that arises in this intra-court writ appeal is on a question relating to the acceptance of a higher qualification of B.Tech and Diploma for the purpose of appointment to the post of operator in the Kerala Water Authority. The qualification prescribed is SSLC or equivalent in National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle/Electrician). W.A. No. 1614/2022 52. The point that arises in this intra-court writ appeal is on a question relating to the acceptance of a higher qualification of B.Tech and Diploma for the purpose of appointment to the post of operator in the Kerala Water Authority. The qualification prescribed is SSLC or equivalent in National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle/Electrician). On the same issue, a Division Bench of this Court in Manikandan M. A. and Another v. Suresh Kumar and Others [ 2015 (5) KHC 850 ] , based on a report obtained from the Director of Technical Education, held that Diploma or B.Tech is a higher qualification presupposing a lower qualification. It is based on this judgment, the learned Single Judge negatived the challenge of the appellants. In the light of the above judgment in Manikandan (supra), we are of the view that the issue is covered against the appellants; we cannot per se say that the inclusion of Diploma or B.Tech holders in the ranked list by the PSC are illegal or unsustainable. The PSC issued the notification for the above post in the year 2020. The Division Bench judgment in Manikandan (supra) was in the year 2015. The Division Bench, in fact, issued a direction to the Director of Technical Education to assess the sufficiency of the higher qualifications. It is pursuant to the report of the expert committee, this Court came to the conclusion that Diploma or B. Tech is a higher qualification. 53. We note that the competent department of the Government to decide on the qualification is the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. That Department is yet to examine the matter. Therefore, we cannot interfere with the present selection process, but at the same time, to safeguard the interest of future aspirants, we have to ensure that the future selection process by the PSC shall be based on the decision of the competent department and shall not merely act on the decision of this Court in Manikandan (supra). Therefore, while dismissing the challenge, we direct the Personnel and Administrative Department to take a decision on the sufficiency of the higher qualifications within three months after adverting to the Special Rules governing qualifications prescribed for the post. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge with the above directions. CONCLUSION ON THE POINT OF LAW 54. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge with the above directions. CONCLUSION ON THE POINT OF LAW 54. Based on the discussion in the general part and an analysis of the individual batch cases, we find that the following proposition of law emerges: i. The Government, as well as the PSC, are competent to determine sufficiency of a qualification under Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS&SSR. ii. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the Government is the competent department to take such a decision. iii. Any such decision of other departments can be taken only as a recommendation for the final decision by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. iv. The sufficiency of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification must be decided with reference to the qualifications prescribed under the Special Rules or executive orders. v. While holding an enquiry as to the sufficiency of a qualification, the Government, as well as the PSC, shall follow the test laid down in Jyoti (supra). vi. The decision of the Government Department or the PSC must precede the issuance of the notification, so that such decision can be applied and reflected in the notification itself. vii The scope of judicial review is limited to examining whether the decision was made following the test applied in Jyoti (supra) and also based on the qualifications referred to in Special Rules or executive orders. viii. If no decision is taken before the issuance of the notification, any decision of the PSC or the Government cannot normally apply retrospectively to have an impact on the ongoing selection process. OUTCOME BATCH I - O.P. (KAT) Nos. 81, 94, 102, 127, 129, 154, 172, 176, 185, 226, 301, 302, 321, 324, 330, 413, 419, 490 & 539 of 2024 and O.P. (KAT) Nos. 64, 121 & 224 of 2025 are allowed and impugned order is set aside. BATCH II - O.P.(KAT) Nos. 359, 434 and 469 of 2024, O.P.(KAT) Nos. 173, 174, 198, 204, 205, 206 and 219 of 2025 are dismissed. O.P.(KAT) No. 154 of 2025 is allowed with a direction to expeditiously conclude the selection process. BATCH III - O.P.(KAT) Nos. 140, 50 and 54 of 2023 are allowed with a direction to expeditiously conclude the selection process, and W.A. No. 1614/2022 is dismissed with directions.