Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 242
Non - Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos…..…of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.29192-29195 of 2024]
Shiny C.J. & Ors.
...Appellants
Versus
Shalini Sreenivasan & Ors. Etc.
...Respondents
W I T H
Civil Appeal Nos…..…of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.1148-1149 of 2025]
Civil Appeal No…..…of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (C) No.1791 of 2025
Civil Appeal No…..…of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (C) No.3973 of 2026]
J U D G M E N T
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Leave granted.
2. Whether Anganwadi Workers having a Secondary
School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) with 10 years’
experience, by reason of having possessed or obtained a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.03.16
17:11:19 IST
Reason:
graduate degree; in their eligibility to apply for vacancies
of Supervisors in the Integrated Child Development Scheme
Page 1 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
(ICDS) should be confined to the 11% earmarked for
graduates? Whether by such earmarking of vacancies for
graduates are they excluded from applying under the 29%
vacancies available to Anganwadi Workers holding an SSLC
certificate and 10 years’ experience, for reason only of
possessing a higher qualification?
3. Sri. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel, led the
arguments for the appellants and first took us to the rule
position as it existed prior to 2013 and after the amendment,
applicable from 01.01.2014. It is pointed out that the specific
ratio carved out for the graduates amongst the Anganwadi
Workers was from the ratio earlier kept apart for direct
recruitment from graduates. This does not exclude the
graduate Anganwadi Workers who have the requisite
experience from applying in the 29% quota which they
were always entitled to. Any interpretation otherwise would
be discounting the efforts undertaken to obtain a higher
qualification. The Anganwadi Workers when they are
appointed as Supervisor ICDS resign from their earlier
appointment and takes up the services under the ICDS.
Many of the graduate Anganwadi Workers appointed in the
Page 2 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
subject selection have thus resigned and face the prospect
of losing their livelihood totally, if the impugned judgment,
with a wrong interpretation, is upheld.
4. We were also taken through the decisions of the
Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the first of
which rejected the claim of the petitioners, the respondents
herein, who were Anganwadi Workers with the qualification
of SSLC alone and 10 years’ experience, for multiple
reasons. First it was found that they had applied under the
notification without demur and on their failure to get
selected, challenged the inclusion of graduates. Then, it was
held that the appellants did not take any effort to implead
the affected parties; only 10 out of the many selected having
been impleaded. The Tribunal also went into the merits and
interpreted the rule correctly to find no exclusion of the
graduates in applying under the notification.
5. We were also taken through the counter affidavit of the
Government to indicate the intention behind providing for
11% quota, which never contemplated exclusion of
graduates in the 29% quota. The counter affidavit of the
Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) was also read
Page 3 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
over to us to bring out the selection procedure, and it was
emphasized that out of the 317 persons appointed only 82
were degree holders. There can be no prejudice found in
reality, as the figures would disclose, which has also been
emphasized by KPSC in its counter. The interpretation by
the High Court is in the teeth of the rule, which provided
only a ratio and not a quota as understood by the High Court.
6. Sri. Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
some of the appellants took us through the notification which
specified the experience, the qualification and the rule
applicable in no uncertain terms. The merit list published
by the KPSC is also put forth to demonstrate that there was
no weightage given to graduates. Sri. Sarath S Janardanan
is concerned with the appellants in SLP (C) No. 1791 of 2025
who though figuring in the merit list were not appointed
because of the status quo order passed on 19.12.2024. The
plea is that if this Court finds in favour of the graduates, then
they may be directed to be appointed dehors the list having
expired on 31.11.2025.
Page 4 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
7. Sri. Vipin Nair for the KPSC and Sri. Harshad V
Hameed for the State sought to uphold the order of the
Tribunal.
8. Ms. Bina Madhavan appearing for the respondents
urged that there was a benefit conferred on the graduates
by apportioning 11% of the vacancies exclusively for them.
It is not permissible for them to apply under the 29%
vacancies which are exclusively preserved for the SSLC
holders who are at a disadvantage insofar as competing with
the graduates in the direct recruitment. The High Court’s
reasoning that the rule provided a definite quota for each of
the categories is fully justified. If the graduates are allowed
to compete along with SSLC holders, in addition to the 11%
quota reserved for them exclusively they would impinge
upon the quota as made available in the statutory rule to the
SSLC holders. Reliance is placed on the decision in and
1
Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. Sri. Rahul Tanwani appearing
for some of the respondents points out from the affidavit of
the KPSC that the ratio of 40% as available to the Anganwadi
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 711
Page 5 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
Workers was split up to clearly demarcate the number of
posts requiring higher qualification, which demonstrate
their exclusion from the 29% vacancies set apart for the
candidates with lesser qualification. The temporary
arrangement as coming out from Note.6 demonstrates that
from 2014 there is a definite quota serving as a specific
source of appointment.
9. The Tribunal found that the special rules applicable to
the subject recruitment does not provide any exclusion to
the graduates having higher qualification and relied on
Jyoti K.K. and Others v. Kerala Public Service
2
Commission and Others It was also found that Annexure
A5 Notification by express words stipulated the application
of Rule 10(a)(ii) which rule was not at all challenged. Relying
on a number of decisions including the latest in Ramesh
3
Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi , non-joinder of necessary
parties was also held against the appellants. The Tribunal
found that the object of bringing a specific ratio for
graduates reveals the intention of the Government to
2
(2010) 15 SCC 596
3
(2013) 11 SCC 309
Page 6 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
improve the quality of services offered under the ICDS by
having graduates, who also have the experience as
Anganwadi Workers. The intention would be frustrated, if
the interpretation as sought for by the petitioners was
accepted.
10. The High Court on the other hand found that there is a
specific quota provided for the graduates and the
amendment was not a mere prescription of qualification.
When 29% quota was allocated to Anganwadi workers with
SSLC and 10 years’ experience and 11% carved out for
Anganwadi Workers possessing a graduate degree from
the 70% available to the open category; by the very
refinement in allocation a distinct quota for graduates and
SSLC holders, mutually exclusive was intended.
11. We have seen the rule and its amendment as available
in the records of SLP (C) No.29192-29195 of 2024; the
documents in which are referred to by us. Annexure P/1 is
the ‘Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate
Services, 2010’ which at Category 13 denotes: Supervisor,
ICDS. The different sources of appointment are (i)
promotion from specified lower categories, (ii) direct
Page 7 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
recruitment and (iii) direct recruitment from Anganwadi
Workers. We are not concerned with the promotions or the
direct recruitment from the general candidates.
12. As the rule existed prior to the amendment, for direct
recruitment from Anganwadi Workers, the eligibility was
SSLC with 10 years’ experience as Anganwadi Workers
under the Integrated Development Scheme in the Social
Welfare Department. The note provided a ratio of 70:29:1 as
applicable respectively to direct recruitment from the open
category, appointment from the Anganwadi Workers and
promotion from the feeder category. By the amendment a
ratio of 40 was provided for direct recruitment from
Anganwadi Workers of which 11 was allotted to the
graduates. Under the Note, where the ratio was prescribed
as 70:29:1, the figures 58:29:11:2 was substituted, enhancing
also the ratio for promotion from the feeder category by
one. The amendment also provided a further Note 6,
wherein it was specified that the ratio of 58:40:2 shall be
applicable till 31.12.2013 without any differentiation
between graduate Anganwadi Workers and those who do
not possess it. In that interregnum, in the absence of
Page 8 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
graduate Anganwadi Workers those vacancies remaining
unfilled shall be filled up from the Anganwadi Workers
possessing only SSLC and the experience of 10 years i.e.,
Category 2 as available in the note.
13. Essentially, we have to observe that by the
amendment the quota of direct recruitment of Anganwadi
Workers was increased from 29 to 40. The increase in ratio
was carved out from the direct recruitment source, which
could have been filled up only with graduates possessing
the stipulated training certificate. There was thus no
reduction of the vacancies or the ratio available prior to the
amendment for the Anganwadi Workers in general i.e:
those who had SSLC qualification with 10 years’ experience,
whether they possessed graduation or not. It is admitted that
the cadre of Anganwadi Workers consisted of both SSLC
holders and graduates. The amendment increasing the ratio
of direct recruit Anganwadi Workers, with the increased
ratio being allocated specifically for graduates, was aimed
at upgrading the cadre of Supervisors in the ICDS by
providing for more graduates with experience as
Anganwadi Workers. At the risk of repetition we have to
Page 9 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
observe that the 11% vacancies was carved out from the
open recruitment of graduates and thus the thrust was to
have graduates with experience in the Supervisor posts.
There is no merit in the contention of the graduates having
been allocated a distinct quota since the 11% vacancies now
earmarked was earlier intended to be filled up with
graduates and after amendment, with experienced
graduates.
14. The Anganwadi Workers with SSLC, with or without
graduation, had eligibility to apply under the 29%
vacancies provided they have 10 years’ experience, prior
to the amendment, which continues after the amendment.
The provision of a ratio of 11% carved out from the direct
recruitment quota of open candidates, would be entitled
exclusively to graduate Anganwadi Workers with
graduation. This does not in any manner reduce the chances
of recruitment of Anganwadi Workers having SSLC alone;
which ground of reduction of chances in any event is not a
valid contention that can be taken by the aspirants to a
particular post.
Page 10 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
15. The 29% applicable to the SSLC holders is retained as
such and even the graduates while being evaluated with the
SSLC holders, as is evident from the records, are evaluated
on the basis of an OMR test and a main written test. We are
also informed by Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for
the KPSC that the syllabus of the examination deals with
paediatric health including periodic inoculations and the
like. The merit list as brought out by the KPSC is produced
at Annexure A2 along with I.A. No.35745 of 2025. The merit
list is in accordance with the marks obtained in the test and
there is no weightage given to any one candidate. As has
been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants, there is no dispute that out of the 317 candidates
selected only 82 were graduates, belying any contention
regarding absence of a level playing field. The graduation
or the absence of it, obviously did not confer a privilege or
a disadvantage to the candidates who appeared for the
selection.
16. We were concerned as to whether the graduates were
given a weightage even in the selection to the 29%
vacancies and whether in reality, they had an edge over the
Page 11 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
SSLC holders for reason of their graduation. Our first
concern was dispelled on being shown the merit list which
does not give any weightage to any of the successful
candidates. The fact that more non-graduates were selected
dispels our further apprehension of the graduates having
had an edge over the non-graduates in the examination,
which we are told is primarily with respect to paediatric
care, which in respect of an Anganwadi Worker with 10
years’ experience is an assessment of the diligence with
which they carried out their work in the cadre of Anganwadi
workers not at all relatable to the higher qualification of
graduation.
17. The counter affidavit of the State also does not bring
out a conclusion as attempted to be projected by one of the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The
enhanced ratio of 40% available to Anganwadi Workers
enmasse, as has been asserted by the State is only to ensure
that 11 % vacancies are clearly demarcated for the
candidates having higher qualification and it was not the
intention to exclude the degree holders from the ratio of
29% available to SSLC qualified Anganwadi Workers with
Page 12 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
required experience. The KPSC in its affidavit produced as
Annexure P6 has also indicated clearly that the selection
was on the basis of the marks obtained in the main
examination, participated in by those candidates who
qualified in the preliminary OMR test.
18. We have noticed Jyoti K.K. as relied on by the
Tribunal which we are of the opinion is not applicable.
Therein the question raised was whether graduates in
engineering could apply under a notification prescribing
diploma in engineering as the eligible qualification. Based
on Rule 10(a)(ii) in the Kerala State and Subordinate
Services Rules, 1956, as also the next higher post of that
notified prescribing graduation in engineering as the
eligibility, this Court found that the higher qualification of
graduation in engineering pre-supposes the eligibility for a
post which require only a diploma; as stipulated in Rule
10(a)(ii) There is no application of the rule or the dicta to the
present facts.
19. Jomon K.K. as pointed out by the learned counsel for
the respondent also is not applicable. Therein two posts of
Syrang and Lascar in the Water Transport Department,
Page 13 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
required respectively a Syrang’s licence and a Lascar’s
licence, the first being issued only to one who possesses the
other. A person having Syrang’s licence applied for the post
of Lascar and got appointed. This Court found that though a
person having a Syrang’s licence would be better equipped
for the job of a Lascar, the rule provided a current Lascar’s
licence at the time of appointment which disabled the
appellant who only had a current Syrang’s licence. Though,
he would have possessed a Lascar’s licence the validity of
that license was not in existence at the time of application.
20. The general observation made by this Court in Jomon
K.K is only to the effect that the action of the employer to
exclude a person from the process of selection as over
qualified or not matching the qualifications prescribed
would have to be justified on a consideration of the rules
governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the
nature of duties to be performed, the nature of service to be
rendered and a host of other factors. The rules governing
the selection and the qualification prescribed enabled the
Anganwadi Workers with 10 years’ experience and SSLC to
compete for the 29% vacancies even if they are graduates
Page 14 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
and did not exclude them by the amendment. Here we have
to specifically observe that Jyoti K.K held that in the wake
of Rule 10(a)(ii) if the intention was to recruit diplomates
alone, either higher qualifications should have been
specifically excluded or graduates, expressly prohibited
from applying. As we held, the rule under the KS & SSR has
no application and the Special Rules, relevant here, do not
exclude graduates.
21. The decisions relied on by the party respondents in
the written submissions do not at all apply. P.M. Latha v.
4
State of Kerala and Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT,
5
Delhi were with respect to selection of BEd. degree
holders, while eligibility as per the advertisement was a
Teachers’ Training Certificate (TTC), on the premise that
BEd. is the higher qualification. This Court set aside the
selection finding that BEd. is not a higher qualification as
also on the ground of deviating from the prescribed
6
qualification. State of Punjab v. Anita dealt with an
advertisement, which invited applications from
4
(2003) 3 SCC 541
5
(2003) 3 SCC 548
6
(2015) 2 SCC 170
Page 15 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
postgraduates, allegedly a higher qualification, but
different and distinct from that statutorily prescribed. The
appointments made were sought to be sustained on the
ground of a Government Instruction providing for persons
with higher qualification to be considered, if persons with
the statutory qualification were not available. It was held
that the Government Instruction in violation of the statutory
rules was a nullity in law and in any event there was no
attempt to first appoint the persons with the statutorily
prescribed qualifications, the same having not even been
indicated in the advertisement.
7
22. Sanjay Kumar v. Narinder Verma was concerned
with a selection to a post where the graduates and
diplomates in Engineering were both invited to apply. The
selection process also provided a common criterion of 80%
marks for the eligibility qualification and 20% marks for viva
voce . The Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal found
that equating diplomates and graduates was improper since
graduation was a higher qualification. This Court found that
7
(2006) 6 SCC 467
Page 16 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
the rule made no distinction whatsoever between the
degree holders and diploma holders at the stage of
recruitment for the purpose of minimum qualification.
Especially when the rules provided for the graduates a
higher starting pay and a lesser service period for
promotion to the higher post the specific contention was that
the entire rules would be in disarray if the statutory
prescription for carrying out a selection, applying a
common criterion for diplomates and graduates is
interfered with. This Court set aside the judgment in the LPA
holding that “ What the executive did not think fit to do by
prescription in the Rules, could not have been done by a
judicial fiat ” (sic para 16). The dictum rather than aiding the
contention of the party respondents helps the petitioners
herein. The High Court in the impugned judgment
interfered with the common source of Anganwadi Workers;
SSLC holders with 10 years’ experience, by providing a
restriction in the 29% ratio to graduates, which as aptly
termed is a judicial fiat interfering with the rule prescription .
23. In the present case the amendment only provided for
a ratio of 11% to graduates exclusively which did not
Page 17 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
disable them from applying for the direct recruitment in the
29% available to Anganwadi Workers with 10 years’
experience who holds SSLC; which the graduates already
held. There can be no distinction found from amongst the
graduates and the SSLC holders insofar as the nature of
duties performed. The rule making authority, the State, was
of the opinion that there should be an earmarked specific
ratio for experienced graduates to enhance the efficiency of
the cadre and the resultant services offered. The intention
of the Government as coming out from the counter affidavit
and a plain reading of the amended rule does not bring forth
any anomaly, but lucidly provides for 11% exclusive ratio
for the graduates, while enabling them to compete along
with SSLC holders, without any weightage in the 29%
vacancies kept apart for the direct recruitment from
Anganwadi Workers with 10 years’ experience.
24. We have not considered the grounds of non-joinder or
the ground raised of a delayed challenge to the selection.
To put the record straight, we would only observe that with
respect to the delay, the petitioners before the Tribunal
could have always urged that they became aware of
Page 18 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
inclusion of the graduates only when the list was published;
their interpretation of the notification and the rule, being
always that 29% was exclusively for the SSLC holders when
11 % was specifically provided for graduates. However, on
the aspect of non-joinder of parties, the High Court erred in
observing that since some of the successful graduates were
arrayed, there could be no such contention raised. We
cannot accept that observation since even if the details of all
the candidates were not available, when that of 10
candidates who were impleaded were known to the
petitioners, they should have sought for their impleadment
in a representative capacity by taking out a substituted
service by publication. As we noticed, we make these
observations only to put the record straight but do not find
either way on these grounds since already on merits we
have found against the petitioners before the Tribunal.
25. We allow the appeals and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court, restoring that of the Tribunal.
We also make it clear that the persons who are available in
the merit list who could have been appointed to the
vacancies reported and pending, before 31.11.2025, the
Page 19 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
date on which the validity of the list expired will be now
appointed, however, without any claim for retrospective
appointment or even notional service being claimed. We
make this order only since this Court had passed an order
of status quo on 19.12.2024 which prohibited the
appointments thereafter till the validity of the list expired.
26. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……...…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 16, 2026
Page 20 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
Non - Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos…..…of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.29192-29195 of 2024]
Shiny C.J. & Ors.
...Appellants
Versus
Shalini Sreenivasan & Ors. Etc.
...Respondents
W I T H
Civil Appeal Nos…..…of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.1148-1149 of 2025]
Civil Appeal No…..…of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (C) No.1791 of 2025
Civil Appeal No…..…of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (C) No.3973 of 2026]
J U D G M E N T
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Leave granted.
2. Whether Anganwadi Workers having a Secondary
School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) with 10 years’
experience, by reason of having possessed or obtained a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.03.16
17:11:19 IST
Reason:
graduate degree; in their eligibility to apply for vacancies
of Supervisors in the Integrated Child Development Scheme
Page 1 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
(ICDS) should be confined to the 11% earmarked for
graduates? Whether by such earmarking of vacancies for
graduates are they excluded from applying under the 29%
vacancies available to Anganwadi Workers holding an SSLC
certificate and 10 years’ experience, for reason only of
possessing a higher qualification?
3. Sri. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel, led the
arguments for the appellants and first took us to the rule
position as it existed prior to 2013 and after the amendment,
applicable from 01.01.2014. It is pointed out that the specific
ratio carved out for the graduates amongst the Anganwadi
Workers was from the ratio earlier kept apart for direct
recruitment from graduates. This does not exclude the
graduate Anganwadi Workers who have the requisite
experience from applying in the 29% quota which they
were always entitled to. Any interpretation otherwise would
be discounting the efforts undertaken to obtain a higher
qualification. The Anganwadi Workers when they are
appointed as Supervisor ICDS resign from their earlier
appointment and takes up the services under the ICDS.
Many of the graduate Anganwadi Workers appointed in the
Page 2 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
subject selection have thus resigned and face the prospect
of losing their livelihood totally, if the impugned judgment,
with a wrong interpretation, is upheld.
4. We were also taken through the decisions of the
Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the first of
which rejected the claim of the petitioners, the respondents
herein, who were Anganwadi Workers with the qualification
of SSLC alone and 10 years’ experience, for multiple
reasons. First it was found that they had applied under the
notification without demur and on their failure to get
selected, challenged the inclusion of graduates. Then, it was
held that the appellants did not take any effort to implead
the affected parties; only 10 out of the many selected having
been impleaded. The Tribunal also went into the merits and
interpreted the rule correctly to find no exclusion of the
graduates in applying under the notification.
5. We were also taken through the counter affidavit of the
Government to indicate the intention behind providing for
11% quota, which never contemplated exclusion of
graduates in the 29% quota. The counter affidavit of the
Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) was also read
Page 3 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
over to us to bring out the selection procedure, and it was
emphasized that out of the 317 persons appointed only 82
were degree holders. There can be no prejudice found in
reality, as the figures would disclose, which has also been
emphasized by KPSC in its counter. The interpretation by
the High Court is in the teeth of the rule, which provided
only a ratio and not a quota as understood by the High Court.
6. Sri. Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
some of the appellants took us through the notification which
specified the experience, the qualification and the rule
applicable in no uncertain terms. The merit list published
by the KPSC is also put forth to demonstrate that there was
no weightage given to graduates. Sri. Sarath S Janardanan
is concerned with the appellants in SLP (C) No. 1791 of 2025
who though figuring in the merit list were not appointed
because of the status quo order passed on 19.12.2024. The
plea is that if this Court finds in favour of the graduates, then
they may be directed to be appointed dehors the list having
expired on 31.11.2025.
Page 4 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
7. Sri. Vipin Nair for the KPSC and Sri. Harshad V
Hameed for the State sought to uphold the order of the
Tribunal.
8. Ms. Bina Madhavan appearing for the respondents
urged that there was a benefit conferred on the graduates
by apportioning 11% of the vacancies exclusively for them.
It is not permissible for them to apply under the 29%
vacancies which are exclusively preserved for the SSLC
holders who are at a disadvantage insofar as competing with
the graduates in the direct recruitment. The High Court’s
reasoning that the rule provided a definite quota for each of
the categories is fully justified. If the graduates are allowed
to compete along with SSLC holders, in addition to the 11%
quota reserved for them exclusively they would impinge
upon the quota as made available in the statutory rule to the
SSLC holders. Reliance is placed on the decision in and
1
Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. Sri. Rahul Tanwani appearing
for some of the respondents points out from the affidavit of
the KPSC that the ratio of 40% as available to the Anganwadi
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 711
Page 5 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
Workers was split up to clearly demarcate the number of
posts requiring higher qualification, which demonstrate
their exclusion from the 29% vacancies set apart for the
candidates with lesser qualification. The temporary
arrangement as coming out from Note.6 demonstrates that
from 2014 there is a definite quota serving as a specific
source of appointment.
9. The Tribunal found that the special rules applicable to
the subject recruitment does not provide any exclusion to
the graduates having higher qualification and relied on
Jyoti K.K. and Others v. Kerala Public Service
2
Commission and Others It was also found that Annexure
A5 Notification by express words stipulated the application
of Rule 10(a)(ii) which rule was not at all challenged. Relying
on a number of decisions including the latest in Ramesh
3
Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi , non-joinder of necessary
parties was also held against the appellants. The Tribunal
found that the object of bringing a specific ratio for
graduates reveals the intention of the Government to
2
(2010) 15 SCC 596
3
(2013) 11 SCC 309
Page 6 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
improve the quality of services offered under the ICDS by
having graduates, who also have the experience as
Anganwadi Workers. The intention would be frustrated, if
the interpretation as sought for by the petitioners was
accepted.
10. The High Court on the other hand found that there is a
specific quota provided for the graduates and the
amendment was not a mere prescription of qualification.
When 29% quota was allocated to Anganwadi workers with
SSLC and 10 years’ experience and 11% carved out for
Anganwadi Workers possessing a graduate degree from
the 70% available to the open category; by the very
refinement in allocation a distinct quota for graduates and
SSLC holders, mutually exclusive was intended.
11. We have seen the rule and its amendment as available
in the records of SLP (C) No.29192-29195 of 2024; the
documents in which are referred to by us. Annexure P/1 is
the ‘Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate
Services, 2010’ which at Category 13 denotes: Supervisor,
ICDS. The different sources of appointment are (i)
promotion from specified lower categories, (ii) direct
Page 7 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
recruitment and (iii) direct recruitment from Anganwadi
Workers. We are not concerned with the promotions or the
direct recruitment from the general candidates.
12. As the rule existed prior to the amendment, for direct
recruitment from Anganwadi Workers, the eligibility was
SSLC with 10 years’ experience as Anganwadi Workers
under the Integrated Development Scheme in the Social
Welfare Department. The note provided a ratio of 70:29:1 as
applicable respectively to direct recruitment from the open
category, appointment from the Anganwadi Workers and
promotion from the feeder category. By the amendment a
ratio of 40 was provided for direct recruitment from
Anganwadi Workers of which 11 was allotted to the
graduates. Under the Note, where the ratio was prescribed
as 70:29:1, the figures 58:29:11:2 was substituted, enhancing
also the ratio for promotion from the feeder category by
one. The amendment also provided a further Note 6,
wherein it was specified that the ratio of 58:40:2 shall be
applicable till 31.12.2013 without any differentiation
between graduate Anganwadi Workers and those who do
not possess it. In that interregnum, in the absence of
Page 8 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
graduate Anganwadi Workers those vacancies remaining
unfilled shall be filled up from the Anganwadi Workers
possessing only SSLC and the experience of 10 years i.e.,
Category 2 as available in the note.
13. Essentially, we have to observe that by the
amendment the quota of direct recruitment of Anganwadi
Workers was increased from 29 to 40. The increase in ratio
was carved out from the direct recruitment source, which
could have been filled up only with graduates possessing
the stipulated training certificate. There was thus no
reduction of the vacancies or the ratio available prior to the
amendment for the Anganwadi Workers in general i.e:
those who had SSLC qualification with 10 years’ experience,
whether they possessed graduation or not. It is admitted that
the cadre of Anganwadi Workers consisted of both SSLC
holders and graduates. The amendment increasing the ratio
of direct recruit Anganwadi Workers, with the increased
ratio being allocated specifically for graduates, was aimed
at upgrading the cadre of Supervisors in the ICDS by
providing for more graduates with experience as
Anganwadi Workers. At the risk of repetition we have to
Page 9 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
observe that the 11% vacancies was carved out from the
open recruitment of graduates and thus the thrust was to
have graduates with experience in the Supervisor posts.
There is no merit in the contention of the graduates having
been allocated a distinct quota since the 11% vacancies now
earmarked was earlier intended to be filled up with
graduates and after amendment, with experienced
graduates.
14. The Anganwadi Workers with SSLC, with or without
graduation, had eligibility to apply under the 29%
vacancies provided they have 10 years’ experience, prior
to the amendment, which continues after the amendment.
The provision of a ratio of 11% carved out from the direct
recruitment quota of open candidates, would be entitled
exclusively to graduate Anganwadi Workers with
graduation. This does not in any manner reduce the chances
of recruitment of Anganwadi Workers having SSLC alone;
which ground of reduction of chances in any event is not a
valid contention that can be taken by the aspirants to a
particular post.
Page 10 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
15. The 29% applicable to the SSLC holders is retained as
such and even the graduates while being evaluated with the
SSLC holders, as is evident from the records, are evaluated
on the basis of an OMR test and a main written test. We are
also informed by Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for
the KPSC that the syllabus of the examination deals with
paediatric health including periodic inoculations and the
like. The merit list as brought out by the KPSC is produced
at Annexure A2 along with I.A. No.35745 of 2025. The merit
list is in accordance with the marks obtained in the test and
there is no weightage given to any one candidate. As has
been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants, there is no dispute that out of the 317 candidates
selected only 82 were graduates, belying any contention
regarding absence of a level playing field. The graduation
or the absence of it, obviously did not confer a privilege or
a disadvantage to the candidates who appeared for the
selection.
16. We were concerned as to whether the graduates were
given a weightage even in the selection to the 29%
vacancies and whether in reality, they had an edge over the
Page 11 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
SSLC holders for reason of their graduation. Our first
concern was dispelled on being shown the merit list which
does not give any weightage to any of the successful
candidates. The fact that more non-graduates were selected
dispels our further apprehension of the graduates having
had an edge over the non-graduates in the examination,
which we are told is primarily with respect to paediatric
care, which in respect of an Anganwadi Worker with 10
years’ experience is an assessment of the diligence with
which they carried out their work in the cadre of Anganwadi
workers not at all relatable to the higher qualification of
graduation.
17. The counter affidavit of the State also does not bring
out a conclusion as attempted to be projected by one of the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The
enhanced ratio of 40% available to Anganwadi Workers
enmasse, as has been asserted by the State is only to ensure
that 11 % vacancies are clearly demarcated for the
candidates having higher qualification and it was not the
intention to exclude the degree holders from the ratio of
29% available to SSLC qualified Anganwadi Workers with
Page 12 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
required experience. The KPSC in its affidavit produced as
Annexure P6 has also indicated clearly that the selection
was on the basis of the marks obtained in the main
examination, participated in by those candidates who
qualified in the preliminary OMR test.
18. We have noticed Jyoti K.K. as relied on by the
Tribunal which we are of the opinion is not applicable.
Therein the question raised was whether graduates in
engineering could apply under a notification prescribing
diploma in engineering as the eligible qualification. Based
on Rule 10(a)(ii) in the Kerala State and Subordinate
Services Rules, 1956, as also the next higher post of that
notified prescribing graduation in engineering as the
eligibility, this Court found that the higher qualification of
graduation in engineering pre-supposes the eligibility for a
post which require only a diploma; as stipulated in Rule
10(a)(ii) There is no application of the rule or the dicta to the
present facts.
19. Jomon K.K. as pointed out by the learned counsel for
the respondent also is not applicable. Therein two posts of
Syrang and Lascar in the Water Transport Department,
Page 13 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
required respectively a Syrang’s licence and a Lascar’s
licence, the first being issued only to one who possesses the
other. A person having Syrang’s licence applied for the post
of Lascar and got appointed. This Court found that though a
person having a Syrang’s licence would be better equipped
for the job of a Lascar, the rule provided a current Lascar’s
licence at the time of appointment which disabled the
appellant who only had a current Syrang’s licence. Though,
he would have possessed a Lascar’s licence the validity of
that license was not in existence at the time of application.
20. The general observation made by this Court in Jomon
K.K is only to the effect that the action of the employer to
exclude a person from the process of selection as over
qualified or not matching the qualifications prescribed
would have to be justified on a consideration of the rules
governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the
nature of duties to be performed, the nature of service to be
rendered and a host of other factors. The rules governing
the selection and the qualification prescribed enabled the
Anganwadi Workers with 10 years’ experience and SSLC to
compete for the 29% vacancies even if they are graduates
Page 14 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
and did not exclude them by the amendment. Here we have
to specifically observe that Jyoti K.K held that in the wake
of Rule 10(a)(ii) if the intention was to recruit diplomates
alone, either higher qualifications should have been
specifically excluded or graduates, expressly prohibited
from applying. As we held, the rule under the KS & SSR has
no application and the Special Rules, relevant here, do not
exclude graduates.
21. The decisions relied on by the party respondents in
the written submissions do not at all apply. P.M. Latha v.
4
State of Kerala and Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT,
5
Delhi were with respect to selection of BEd. degree
holders, while eligibility as per the advertisement was a
Teachers’ Training Certificate (TTC), on the premise that
BEd. is the higher qualification. This Court set aside the
selection finding that BEd. is not a higher qualification as
also on the ground of deviating from the prescribed
6
qualification. State of Punjab v. Anita dealt with an
advertisement, which invited applications from
4
(2003) 3 SCC 541
5
(2003) 3 SCC 548
6
(2015) 2 SCC 170
Page 15 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
postgraduates, allegedly a higher qualification, but
different and distinct from that statutorily prescribed. The
appointments made were sought to be sustained on the
ground of a Government Instruction providing for persons
with higher qualification to be considered, if persons with
the statutory qualification were not available. It was held
that the Government Instruction in violation of the statutory
rules was a nullity in law and in any event there was no
attempt to first appoint the persons with the statutorily
prescribed qualifications, the same having not even been
indicated in the advertisement.
7
22. Sanjay Kumar v. Narinder Verma was concerned
with a selection to a post where the graduates and
diplomates in Engineering were both invited to apply. The
selection process also provided a common criterion of 80%
marks for the eligibility qualification and 20% marks for viva
voce . The Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal found
that equating diplomates and graduates was improper since
graduation was a higher qualification. This Court found that
7
(2006) 6 SCC 467
Page 16 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
the rule made no distinction whatsoever between the
degree holders and diploma holders at the stage of
recruitment for the purpose of minimum qualification.
Especially when the rules provided for the graduates a
higher starting pay and a lesser service period for
promotion to the higher post the specific contention was that
the entire rules would be in disarray if the statutory
prescription for carrying out a selection, applying a
common criterion for diplomates and graduates is
interfered with. This Court set aside the judgment in the LPA
holding that “ What the executive did not think fit to do by
prescription in the Rules, could not have been done by a
judicial fiat ” (sic para 16). The dictum rather than aiding the
contention of the party respondents helps the petitioners
herein. The High Court in the impugned judgment
interfered with the common source of Anganwadi Workers;
SSLC holders with 10 years’ experience, by providing a
restriction in the 29% ratio to graduates, which as aptly
termed is a judicial fiat interfering with the rule prescription .
23. In the present case the amendment only provided for
a ratio of 11% to graduates exclusively which did not
Page 17 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
disable them from applying for the direct recruitment in the
29% available to Anganwadi Workers with 10 years’
experience who holds SSLC; which the graduates already
held. There can be no distinction found from amongst the
graduates and the SSLC holders insofar as the nature of
duties performed. The rule making authority, the State, was
of the opinion that there should be an earmarked specific
ratio for experienced graduates to enhance the efficiency of
the cadre and the resultant services offered. The intention
of the Government as coming out from the counter affidavit
and a plain reading of the amended rule does not bring forth
any anomaly, but lucidly provides for 11% exclusive ratio
for the graduates, while enabling them to compete along
with SSLC holders, without any weightage in the 29%
vacancies kept apart for the direct recruitment from
Anganwadi Workers with 10 years’ experience.
24. We have not considered the grounds of non-joinder or
the ground raised of a delayed challenge to the selection.
To put the record straight, we would only observe that with
respect to the delay, the petitioners before the Tribunal
could have always urged that they became aware of
Page 18 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
inclusion of the graduates only when the list was published;
their interpretation of the notification and the rule, being
always that 29% was exclusively for the SSLC holders when
11 % was specifically provided for graduates. However, on
the aspect of non-joinder of parties, the High Court erred in
observing that since some of the successful graduates were
arrayed, there could be no such contention raised. We
cannot accept that observation since even if the details of all
the candidates were not available, when that of 10
candidates who were impleaded were known to the
petitioners, they should have sought for their impleadment
in a representative capacity by taking out a substituted
service by publication. As we noticed, we make these
observations only to put the record straight but do not find
either way on these grounds since already on merits we
have found against the petitioners before the Tribunal.
25. We allow the appeals and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court, restoring that of the Tribunal.
We also make it clear that the persons who are available in
the merit list who could have been appointed to the
vacancies reported and pending, before 31.11.2025, the
Page 19 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.
date on which the validity of the list expired will be now
appointed, however, without any claim for retrospective
appointment or even notional service being claimed. We
make this order only since this Court had passed an order
of status quo on 19.12.2024 which prohibited the
appointments thereafter till the validity of the list expired.
26. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……...…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 16, 2026
Page 20 of 20
CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.