2026 INSC 242 Page 1 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

graduate degree; in their eligibility to apply for vacancies

of Supervisors in the Integrated Child Development Scheme

Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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

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

1

2025 SCC OnLine SC 711

Page 6 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

Commission and Others

2 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 Joshi

3, 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.

State of Kerala

4 and Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT,

Delhi

5

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. Anita

6 dealt with an

advertisement, which invited applications from

4

(2003) 3 SCC 541

5

(2003) 3 SCC 548

6

(2015) 2 SCC 170

Page 16 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.

22. Sanjay Kumar v. Narinder Verma

7 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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