Graduates are not excluded from applying under the 29% quota for SSLC holders in Anganwadi Supervisor vacancies.

The case concerns the eligibility of Anganwadi Workers for vacancies of Supervisors in the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS).

Before 2013, the eligibility for direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers was a Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) with 10 years’ experience, with a 70:29:1 ratio for open category direct recruitment, Anganwadi Workers, and promotion, respectively.

An amendment effective from January 1, 2014, increased the direct recruitment ratio from Anganwadi Workers to 40% and specifically allotted 11% of this to graduates, substituting the earlier ratio of 70:29:1 with 58:29:11:2.

The amendment also added Note 6, stating that the 58:40:2 ratio would apply until December 31, 2013, without differentiating between graduate and non-graduate Anganwadi Workers, and unfilled graduate vacancies would be filled by SSLC-qualified Anganwadi Workers.

The petitioners before the Tribunal (respondents in this appeal) were Anganwadi Workers with only SSLC and 10 years' experience.

They challenged the inclusion of graduates after failing to be selected, arguing that the 29% vacancies were exclusively for SSLC holders.

The Tribunal rejected their claim, finding no exclusion of graduates from applying under the notification and noting the non-joinder of necessary parties.

The High Court, however, overturned the Tribunal's decision, interpreting the amendment as creating mutually exclusive quotas: 29% for SSLC holders and 11% for graduates.

The appellants (Anganwadi Workers with graduate degrees and experience) challenged the High Court's interpretation, arguing that the 11% earmarked for graduates did not exclude them from the 29% available to all Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and 10 years of experience.

The KPSC highlighted that out of 317 appointed, only 82 were degree holders, indicating no prejudice.

1. Whether Anganwadi Workers holding a graduate degree and meeting the SSLC and 10 years' experience criteria can apply for vacancies of Supervisors under both the 11% earmarked for graduates and the 29% available for Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and 10 years' experience.

2. Whether the earmarking of 11% of vacancies for graduate Anganwadi Workers excludes them from applying for the 29% vacancies available to Anganwadi Workers holding an SSLC certificate and 10 years’ experience, solely due to possessing a higher qualification.

The court primarily interpreted the 'Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Services, 2010', and its amendment effective January 1, 2014, specifically focusing on Category 13: Supervisor, ICDS, and the ratios for direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers.

It also referenced Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956, which generally allows higher qualifications to be considered eligible for posts prescribing a lower qualification, unless specifically excluded, as noted in the context of the *Jyoti K.K. and Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others* decision.

The court distinguished the present case from precedents like *Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P.*, *P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala*, *Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT, Delhi*, *State of Punjab v. Anita*, and *Sanjay Kumar v. Narinder Verma*, which dealt with different scenarios such as distinct licenses, non-higher qualifications, or statutory rules vs. government instructions.

The Court analyzed the amendment to the 'Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Services, 2010,' noting that the quota for direct recruitment of Anganwadi Workers increased from 29% to 40%.

This increase, including the 11% specifically for graduates, was carved out not from the existing 29% for Anganwadi Workers but from the direct recruitment source previously open to graduates with specific training, thus not reducing the opportunities for Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and 10 years' experience.

The Court found that the 11% earmarking was intended to upgrade the Supervisor cadre by including experienced graduates but did not establish a mutually exclusive quota.

It emphasized that the 29% quota remained available to all Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and 10 years' experience, whether they possessed a graduate degree or not.

The State's counter-affidavit and KPSC's affidavit confirmed that the 11% demarcation was for candidates with higher qualifications, without intending to exclude degree holders from the 29%.

The Court distinguished *Jyoti K.K.* because its Rule 10(a)(ii) context was not applicable, and the Special Rules here did not exclude graduates.

Similarly, other cited cases were found inapplicable as they dealt with different legal or factual scenarios, such as the eligibility of B.Ed. holders for TTC posts or the effect of government instructions against statutory rules.

The Court, referencing *Sanjay Kumar*, concluded that the High Court's imposition of a restriction on graduates in the 29% ratio amounted to a "judicial fiat" interfering with the rule prescription.

The actual selection process, based on OMR and written tests without weightage for graduation, and the fact that more non-graduates were selected (82 out of 317 were graduates), further supported that graduation did not confer an unfair advantage in the 29% category.

1. Anganwadi Workers holding a graduate degree and meeting the SSLC and 10 years' experience criteria **can** apply for vacancies of Supervisors under both the 11% earmarked for graduates and the 29% available for Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and 10 years' experience.

2. The earmarking of 11% of vacancies for graduate Anganwadi Workers **does not** exclude them from applying for the 29% vacancies available to Anganwadi Workers holding an SSLC certificate and 10 years’ experience, solely due to possessing a higher qualification.

The Court directed that persons on the merit list who could have been appointed to reported and pending vacancies before November 31, 2025 (when the list expired) be appointed, without retrospective appointment or notional service claims, due to an earlier status quo order.