The judgment is a judgment from the Supreme Court of India regarding the appeal filed by Shifana P.S. against the State of Kerala and others. The case pertains to the appellant's claim for being considered for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) despite her qualification in B.Sc (Polymer Chemistry) and B.Ed (Physical Science). The appellant's name was excluded from the final merit list by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) due to the non-recognition of her degree as equivalent to B.Sc (Chemistry), a required qualification for the post. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, leading to this further appeal.

1. Introduction

• Case Title: Shifana P.S. vs. The State of Kerala and Others
• Appeal No.: 4468 of 2013
• Judgment Date: August 6, 2024

2. Background

• The KPSC invited applications for High School Assistant (Physical Science) with a requirement of a degree in B.Sc (Chemistry) and B.Ed./BT.
• The appellant, holding a B.Sc (Polymer Chemistry) and B.Ed (Physical Science), cleared the written exam but was excluded from the final merit list for not meeting the required qualifications.

3. Appellant’s Argument

• The appellant argued that the University of Calicut issued a certificate stating that B.Sc (Polymer Chemistry) is equivalent to B.Sc (Chemistry) for employment and higher studies.
• She claimed that the exclusion from the merit list was unjust as her degree should be considered equivalent.

4. Respondent’s Argument

• The KPSC maintained that the appellant did not meet the explicit requirement of a degree in B.Sc (Chemistry).
• It was argued that equivalence of qualifications is a matter for the State or the recruiting authority and not subject to judicial review.

5. Tribunal and High Court Decisions

• The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application, citing non-qualification.
• The High Court affirmed this decision, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

6. Supreme Court Judgment

• The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and High Court.
• It was ruled that judicial review cannot expand or alter the prescribed qualifications.
• The equivalence of qualifications is a matter for the State and academic authorities, not the courts.

7. Conclusion

• The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming that the appellant did not meet the necessary qualifications for the advertised post.
• The court emphasized the role of designated authorities in determining the equivalence of academic qualifications.