{"id":669263,"date":"2026-11-10T02:22:46","date_gmt":"2026-11-10T06:22:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/669263\/"},"modified":"2026-11-10T02:22:46","modified_gmt":"2026-11-10T06:22:46","slug":"kerala-high-court-upholds-government-order-mandating-40-minimum-marks-for-by-transfer-appointment-to-secretariat-legal-assistant-grade-ii-post","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/669263\/","title":{"rendered":"Kerala High Court Upholds Government Order Mandating 40% Minimum Marks for By-Transfer Appointment to Secretariat Legal Assistant Grade II Post"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Kerala<\/figure>\n

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has upheld the Government\u2019s provision requiring candidates to secure at least 40 percent marks in the written examination for by-transfer appointment to the Legal Assistant Grade II post in the Secretariat Law Department. The Court explained that the minimum qualification standard is fixed with the objective of appointing only those candidates possessing deep knowledge of legal matters, practical expertise, and adequate competency for the responsible position.<\/p>\n

The High Court observed that determining eligibility criteria in public service appointments must consider the nature of the post and the severity of the duties involved. The Court dismissed a petition filed by employees of the Secretariat Subordinate Service, who challenged the government\u2019s 40 percent cut-off mark rule as unlawful.<\/p>\n

The Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muraleekrishna S. ruled that the earlier stance adopted by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was legally sound, negating the need for intervention in the Tribunal\u2019s order. The judgment was delivered on November 5.<\/p>\n

The controversy arose from conditions outlined in the appointment notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission on December 31, 2020. This notification prescribed that candidates must achieve a minimum of 40 percent marks in the written test for eligibility under the by-transfer appointment process to the Legal Assistant Grade II post in the Secretariat Law Department. The petitioners questioned this stipulation.<\/p>\n

The petitioners contended that the special rules governing appointments to this post do not prescribe any minimum qualification marks for the written test. They argued that a government order imposing a new condition absent in the special rules is legally impermissible. They also highlighted that previous by-transfer recruitments had no such cut-off mark criterion. Their demand was that all candidates meeting the basic eligibility to sit for the written examination be included in the ranking based on their scores, without any minimum cut-off.<\/p>\n

Further, the petitioners alleged that imposing an unprescribed minimum score obliterates recruitment opportunities for otherwise qualified candidates. However, the High Court rejected these contentions.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that in the absence of explicit instructions in the service rules on certain subjects, the Government can implement necessary regulatory measures by administrative orders, provided they are not contrary to the rules. The Court noted that silence in the rules does not eliminate the Government\u2019s administrative authority in all scenarios.<\/p>\n

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal had earlier found that government orders setting minimum qualification criteria do not modify or override the special rules but operate as subsidiary administrative directions. The High Court affirmed this position and found no illegality in the Government\u2019s measures to ensure eligibility for appointment.<\/p>\n

The Court also carefully examined the legality of challenging the conditions specified in the appointment notification after candidates had appeared for the examination. It found that the 40 percent minimum qualification clause was clearly stated in the PSC notification well before the recruitment process began. Therefore, candidates were aware of this condition at the time of submission of applications.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that candidates who applied and appeared for the written test without any objection initially only questioned the recruitment condition and approached the Tribunal post publication of the result list. The Court took into account that legal challenges to the conditions were raised at a stage when candidate performances and selections were already known.<\/p>\n

Highlighting the distinctive nature of the Legal Assistant post in the Law Department, the Court underlined the necessity for personnel in such posts to have adequate understanding and the ability to apply laws correctly and responsibly. It emphasized the Government\u2019s duty to ensure candidates\u2019 legal knowledge and competency when making appointments to such sensitive positions.<\/p>\n

The Court further considered the disparity in eligibility standards between by-transfer and direct recruitment. It noted instances where candidates with very low scores in the by-transfer category secured appointments, while relatively higher-scoring candidates in the direct recruitment category were denied opportunities. Against this background, the Court found the Government\u2019s decision to impose a minimum qualification to be justified.<\/p>\n

The Court endorsed the Government\u2019s argument that such standards improve the quality of recruitment and help identify suitably competent candidates. It affirmed that differences in recruitment methods cannot justify compromising required legal knowledge.<\/p>\n

The petitioners\u2019 claim that the 40 percent cut-off resulted in fewer candidates making the shortlist was also dismissed. The Bench stated that a reduction in the number of candidates eligible under a qualifying criterion alone does not warrant invalidation of that standard. It reminded that the primary aim of public service recruitment is not only to fill vacancies but also to find the most suitable candidates capable of effectively performing the duties.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Government\u2019s step to maintain a minimum eligibility standard cannot be invalidated solely on account of a diminished candidate pool.<\/p>\n

The ruling also affirmed that administrative orders can set additional eligibility requirements for recruitment provided they do not contravene special rules. This legal position was reiterated through the Court\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the lawyers\u2019 legal challenge in the High Court against the Government\u2019s 40 percent minimum qualification requirement for by-transfer appointments to the Secretariat Law Department\u2019s Legal Assistant Grade II post suffered a setback. By affirming the Kerala Administrative Tribunal\u2019s order, the Division Bench emphasized that qualifications and competencies relevant to the post\u2019s nature take precedence over the mere number of candidates in public service appointments.<\/p>\n

n<\/p>\n

Original Malayalam report: Malayalam Daily News<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has upheld the Government\u2019s provision requiring candidates to secure at least 40 percent marks in the written examination for by-transfer appointment to the Legal Assistant Grade II post in the Secretariat Law Department. The Court explained that the minimum qualification standard is fixed with the objective of appointing only those candidates possessing deep knowledge of legal matters, practical expertise, and adequate competency for the responsible position. The High Court observed that determining eligibility criteria in public service appointments must consider the nature of the post…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":669264,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[582,170398,47748],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-669263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-english","category-kerala","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/669263","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=669263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/669263\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/669264"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=669263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=669263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.malayalamdailynews.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=669263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}