SHINY C.J vs. SHALINI SREENIVASAN

Whether Anganwadi Workers having a Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) with 10 years’ experience, by reason of having possessed or obtained a graduate degree; in their eligibility to apply for vacancies of Supervisors in the Integrated Child Development Scheme Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2026.03.16 17:11:19 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

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

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.

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

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 5 of 20 CA @ SLP (C) No.29192-95 of 2024 etc.

Sri. Vipin Nair for the KPSC and Sri. Harshad V Hameed for the State sought to uphold the order of the Tribunal.

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 Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P.1 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

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 Commission and Others2 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 Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi3, 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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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,

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

The decisions relied on by the party respondents in the written submissions do not at all apply. P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala4 and Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT, Delhi5 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 qualification. State of Punjab v. Anita6 dealt with an advertisement, which invited applications from 4 (2003) 3 SCC 541 5 (2003) 3 SCC 548 6 (2015) 2 SCC 170

Sanjay Kumar v. Narinder Verma7 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

In the present case the amendment only provided for a ratio of 11% to graduates exclusively which did not

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

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

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.