IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 15693 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FERDIN LAZAR.M, S/O.LAZAR, AGED 44 YEARS, MELIT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, MUNDATHICODE.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680601. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS SMT.K.P.SHAMEENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REP.BY VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, COCHIN-22. 2. REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, COCHIN-22. 3. FAIZAL, SELECTED CANDIDATE, TECHNICIAN-1 IN THE DEPT.OF INSTRUMENTATION, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, COCHIN-22. 4. VINOD K.M, SELECTED CANDIDATE, TECHNICIAN-1 IN THE DEPT.OF INSTRUMENTATION, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, COCHIN-22. 5. VISWAM M.G., SELECTED CANDIDATE, TECHNICIAN-1 IN THE DEPT.OF INSTRUMENTATION, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, COCHIN-22. ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R1 & 2 SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, STANDING COUNSEL - R1 R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 15693 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The first respondent University invited applications as per Ext.R1(a) notification dated 9.11.2000 for selection to the post of Technician-I in the department of Instrumentation. In fact only one vacancy was notified thereunder. The qualification prescribed thereunder was as follows: “ITI Instrument Mechanic with 3 years experience in Repair & Maintenance of Instruments. Preference will be given to those who have experience in Transformer and Motor winding.” In response to the said said notification, the petitioner has submitted his application and thereupon he was called upon for an interview. Four persons including the petitioner were interviewed on 6.4.2000. After the said selection process, the respondents have drawn Ext.P4 ranked list. It contained the names of the other three candidates. In short, the petitioner was not included in the select list and this writ petition has been filed feeling aggrieved by his exclusion from the said select list. WPC.15693/2010 : 2 : 2. As already noticed hereinbefore, the qualification prescribed as per Ext.R1(a) notification for the post of Technician-I was ITI Instrument Mechanic with three years experience in Repair & Maintenance of Instruments. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the said qualification. To prove his qualification for selection to the said post the petitioner had produced Ext.P1 Certificate issued by the Indian Army. It is a proficiency certificate. It would reveal that the petitioner had served the Indian Army for 16 years. The Note incorporated thereunder is relevant and the same reads thus: “The terms of Government of India Ministry of personnel public Grievances and pension (Department of personnel & Training) letter No. 1502/8/8/82/Est(D) dated 12 Feb 86 an ex-servicemen who has put in 15 years service in the Armed Forces and having Matriculation may be considered eligible for appointment to the posts for which the essential qualification prescribed is 'GRADUATION'” Ext.P2 is a Graduate Certificate issued by the Indian Army on 31.10.2000. It is certified thereunder as follows:- “In view of the above concession, Service Number 14573711 F Rank Ex HAV Name & Initial Ferdin Lazar M Trade Inst Mech who had served in the Indian Army for 16 years from 28 October 1984 to 31 Oct 2000 may be considered educationally qualified for reserved Group 'C' posts where the prescribed qualification is Graduation.” A perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 would thus reveal as per the former the petitioner could be considered eligible for WPC.15693/2010 : 3 : appointment to any reserved vacancy to the posts for which the essential qualification prescribed is 'Graduation' and that as per the letter the petitioner could considered educationally qualified for reserved Group 'C' posts where the prescribed qualification is Graduation. A bare perusal of Ext.R1(a) would reveal that the qualification prescribed therein was not 'Graduation' whilst the qualification prescribed was definitely a technical qualification. 3. It would also reveal that technical experience was also essential for the said post. 3 years experience in Repair & Maintenance of Instruments was prescribed for that behalf. In the said context the first part of Ext.P2 certificate is relevant. “This is to certify that as per Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) ON No. 15012/8/82/Estt.(D) dated 12 February 86, Ex- servicemen who are matriculate(which terms includes ex-servicemen who have obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the Navy or Air Force), and has put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group 'C' posts or which the essential qualification is graduation and where experience of technical or professional nature is not essential.” Thus, even going by the terms of the said certificate it cannot be relied on by the petitioner for the purpose of claiming eligibility. However, the petitioner was permitted to partake in the interview. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it has WPC.15693/2010 : 4 : been stated that at the interview the petitioner could score only 38 marks and the cut off mark fixed for the ranking was 40. It is specifically stated therein that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification of I.T.I Instrument Mechanic. Even then, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the interview but, he came out unsuccessful in the test. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot legally claim that he should be included in the select list. I am not inclined to accept the contention that the procedures adopted by the respondents for drawing Ext.P4 list were illegal. There is absolutely no basis for the same. As already noticed, despite being unqualified in terms of Ext.R1(a) notification, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the interview. However, he failed to qualify in the said test. A person who thus failed to qualify in a test cannot be permitted to turn round to challenge the selection process. For all these reasons I am of the view that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy/ P.A to Judge