IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16929 of 2009(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ANILA. R., ABIRAMEEYM, KOTTAVILA, MUNDELA P.O., VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.THOMAS ABRAHAM, ADVOCATE. MR.DIPU.R, ADVOCATE. MS.MERCIAMMA MATHEW, ADVOCATE. MR.K.S.HARIDAS, ADVOCATE. MR.V.RENJITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY MR.DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16929 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Lecturer in Hindi notified by the Public Service Commission as per Exhibit P2 notification dated 10.09.2008. Therein, the last date for submission of the application prescribed is 15.10.2008. The application of the petitioner was rejected mainly for two reasons:- that the petitioner does not have 55% marks in the P.G examination and the experience qualification is short by two months. This is evident from Exhibit P6 communication issued by the Public Service Commission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as regards the question whether the petitioner was required to fulfill 55% marks, going by Exhibit P3 amendment of the relevant Special Rules, the same is not required. It is pointed out that Exhibit P3 amendment was brought into force from 27.09.2008, much prior to the last date for receipt of the application and W.P.(C) No.16929/2009 2 therefore, as on the last date of application, the qualifications remain amended. Only 50% marks is required going by Exhibit P3 and therefore, the petitioner's application will have to be treated as valid. 3. From the counter affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission, it is clear that four vacancies were notified as per the notification. Only two candidates with required qualification were admitted and their interview was held on 02.07.2009 and ranked list was under process at that point of time. It is made clear in the counter affidavit that the remaining two vacancies will be notified for another selection prescribing qualifications which are amended as per G.O.(P) No.115/08/H.Edn. dated 27.09.2008. It is the case of the Commission that the pending selection can only be conducted according to the rules which existed at the time of notification and therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner is in order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Stalin vs. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 493) in support of his arguments. It is W.P.(C) No.16929/2009 3 submitted that the situation herein is an exceptional one as the amendment was made prior to the last date fixed for the receipt of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the second limb of Exhibit R3(a) produced along with the counter affidavit. Exhibit R3(a) is the Government Order dated 27.06.1985 specifying that the changes in qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions for recruitment introduced after the issue of a notification for selection to the post by the Kerala Public Service Commission will be given effect to in future selections only. The second limb of Exhibit R3(a) reads thus: “...........except in cases where such changes announced amount to concessions or exemptions to such persons already included in the Ranked List as well as prospective candidates will be entitled and where the change is of such a minor nature that they can be given effect to without the necessity of upsetting any selection procedure underway or of revising the Ranked List already prepared”. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that being a prospective candidate, as specified in Exhibit R3(a), the petitioner can be given a concession in the matter of W.P.(C) No.16929/2009 4 academic marks which may not upset the selection process. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mohanan vs. Director of Homeopathy (2006(3) KLT 641), especially paragraphs 20 and 21 wherein the effect of an amendment of Special Rules in respect of an ongoing selection process was considered in detail. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Stalin vs. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 493) was explained therein. After considering various aspects, the legal position was laid down by the Full Bench in paragraph 22 in the following words: “............Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that once an amendment regarding qualifications and method of appointment etc., in respect of a particular post comes into force any vacancy which arises subsequent to the commencement of the amended rules can be filled up only in accordance with the amended rules notwithstanding the currency of any rank list published by the PSC, selection of which was initiated prior to the amendment of the rules”. 7. In the light of the above, it is clear that the amendment W.P.(C) No.16929/2009 5 will apply in respect of selection procedure initiated in respect of vacancies which arise subsequent to the date of commencement of the amended rules. Herein, four vacancies were notified as per Exhibit P2. Therefore, in respect of those four vacancies, evidently, the qualification prescribed as per Exhibit P2 will have to be applied. Only two valid applications were there. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the application submitted by the petitioner could not have been accepted by the Commission as it is short of 55% of marks prescribed in the notification. 8. Going by the counter affidavit, only two candidates were admitted and the remaining two vacancies will have to be notified afresh. The petitioner may be able to respond to the subsequent notification if published in that regard. In that view of the matter, I am not going into the second ground for rejection of the application ie. regarding the experience qualification. The said issue is left open. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a fresh notification is issued, the petitioner may not fulfill the qualification regarding age unless the Government extends the age limit. It is a matter W.P.(C) No.16929/2009 6 which the petitioner will have to take up before the Government at the appropriate time. Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp