IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24685 of 2007(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. SREEJESH K., KADUMAYIL HOUSE, KANHIRAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ALTHAF D., ALSHA MANZIL, CHATHAMPARA, THOTTEKKADU P.O., KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.PADMANABHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 2. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR (ACADEMIC & PG STUDIES). R1 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, R2 BY ADV. MR. K.P.MUJEEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 18/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 24770 OF 2007 WPC NO.1321 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.24685/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1(a):- COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF BACHELOR OF FISHERIES SCIENCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P1(b):- COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF BCHELOR OF FISHERIES SCIENCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 26.4.05. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACAD/A3/21457/07 DTD. 6.7.07. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACAD/A3/21457/07 DTD. 10.7.07. P5(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RODI(3) 434/06/ 101042 DTD. 27.6.07 ISSUED BY TO IST PETITIONER. P5(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RODI(3) 1434/06 DT.D 15.6.07 ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER. P6(a):- COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD NO.ROD1(3) 1434/06/FR3 DTD. 16..807 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P6(b):- COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD NO.ROD I(3) 1434/06/FR3 DTD./ 2.8.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER NO.RODI(3) 1434/06 DT.D 13.8.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P8(a):- COPY OF THE MARK LIST DTD. 23.9.05 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPODNENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P(b):- COPY OF THE MARK LIST DTD. 23.9.05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE RANK LIST ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE CLARIFICATORY NOTIFICATION NO.ACAD/A3/21457/07 DTD. 13.9.07 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. P11:- COPY OF THE AWARD AND B.FSC, PROGRAMME NO.ACAD/A3/2763/2005 DTD. 23.5.05 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT TO SANDEEP M.G. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.24685/2007, 24770/2007-W & 1321/2009-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos. 24685/2007 and 24770/2007 are applicants to the post of Vocational Instructor Fisheries Science as per notification dated 26/04/2005. In W.P.(C).No.1321/2009, the petitioner is an applicant to the post of Physical Education (Malayalam Medium) in Palakkad District. 2. As per the notifications, the last date fixed for receipt of application is 08/06/2005 in the first two cases, and in the third case the last date is 11/09/2006. It is the common case of the petitioners in W.P.(C). Nos.24685/2007 and 24770/2007 that they have successfully completed the course in the Bachelor of Fisheries Science (B.F.Sc) on the last date fixed for receipt of the application and they have appeared for the examination also. The petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 24685/2007 have produced Exts.P1(a) and P2(b) degree certificates awarded by the Kerala Agricultural University to show that they have completed the programme in April 2005. Going by the notification, the last date being 08/06/2005, the crucial question is whether the petitioners have acquired the qualification as on the last date. W.P.(C). Nos.24685/07, 24770/07 & 1321/2009 -:2:- The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1321/2009 is having Degree in Zoology and M.P.Ed which are evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. 3. The applications of the petitioners were rejected for the reason that they have not acquired the necessary qualification as on the crucial date. The petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 24685/2007 have produced Exts.P3 and P4 communications issued by the Agricultural University addressed to the P.S.C to the effect that the candidates have successfully completed the course in April 2005 itself. It is also mentioned in Ext.P3 that due to special circumstances, the University had to issue the result of the B.F.Sc students on two days vide two notifications. 4. The Commission has filed a detailed counter affidavit in W.P. (C).No. 24685/2007. Clause 19 of the General Conditions is relied upon. The same is extracted below:- “Qualifications including experience for a post shall be one acquired by the candidate in or before the last date fixed for receipt of applications for that particular post. The date for determining whether a candidate does posses a particular qualification including experience shall be the last date fixed for receipt of application. It is further clarified that in case W.P.(C). Nos.24685/07, 24770/07 & 1321/2009 -:3:- of the examination conducted by the University, or any other competent authority, the candidates will be deemed to have passed the Examination only w.e.f the date of official publication of the results of the Examination by the University or the concerned Authority.” 5. Therefore, going by the same, the date of official publication of the result of the University Examination can be reckoned to see whether a candidate can be considered to have passed the examination as on the last date prescribed for receipt of the applications. It is averred in the counter affidavit in the said writ petition that the two petitioners have passed the examination as per notification dated 12/07/2005. In W.P.(C). No.24770/2007, except that of the fifth petitioner, the date of publication is 12/07/2005 and the said date in respect of the fifth petitioner is 14/10/2005. 6. In W.P.(C).No.1321/2009, going by Exts.P12 and P14 the date of publication of the result is 28/02/2008, whereas, the last date fixed for receipt of the application is 11/09/2006. 7. The question is whether in view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners will be deemed to have validly passed the examination as on the last date of the receipt of the application. The issue is covered against the petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court W.P.(C). Nos.24685/07, 24770/07 & 1321/2009 -:4:- in Charles K.Skaria and others vs. Dr.C.Mathew and others [AIR 1980 SC 1230]. After examining the legal questions, it was held thus in paragraph 26:- “26. Even so, there is a snag. Who are the diploma-holders eligible for 10 extra marks? Only those who, at least by the final date for making applications for admissions possess the diploma. Acquisition of a diploma later may qualify him later, not this year. Otherwise, the dateline makes no sense. So, the short question is when can a candidate claim to have got a diploma? When he has done all that he has to do and the result of it is officially made known by the concerned authority. An examinee for a degree or diploma must complete his examination -- written, oral or practical -- before he can tell the selection committee or the court that he has done his part. Even this is not enough. If all goes well after that, he cannot be credited with the title to the degree if the results are announced only after the last date for applications but before selection. The W.P.(C). Nos.24685/07, 24770/07 & 1321/2009 -:5:- second condition precedent must also be fulfilled, viz., the official communication of the result before the selection and its being brought to the ken of the committee in an authentic manner. Maybe, the examination is cancelled or the marks of the candidates are withheld. He acquires the degree or diploma only when the results are officially made known. Until then his qualification is inchoate. But once these events happen his qualification can be taken into account in evaluation of equal opportunity provided the selection committee has the result before it at the time of -- not after -- the selection is over. To sum up, the applicant for post-graduate degree course earns the right to the added advantage of diploma only if (a) he has completed the diploma examination on or before the last date for the application, (b) the result of the examination is also published before that date, and (c) the candidate's success in the diploma course is brought to the W.P.(C). Nos.24685/07, 24770/07 & 1321/2009 -:6:- knowledge of the selection committee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable manner.” 8. Infact, in various decisions of this Court, the same issue has been considered. Mention could also be made about the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and another [ (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 18]. It was held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. 9. In the light of the above, going by the General Conditions, especially, Clause (19), the candidate will have to be deemed to have passed the examination on or before the last date for receipt of the applications. Here going by the admitted facts, results have published only later. Even if there is any administrative delay on the part of the University, that will not be of any help to the petitioners in the light of the legal principles that governs the matter. W.P.(C). Nos.24685/07, 24770/07 & 1321/2009 -:7:- 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri K.Padmanabhan, relied upon the decision of this Court in Chhotu Ram vs. State of Haryana and Others [ (2000) 10 SCC 399] to contend for the position that the petitioners would be deemed to have qualified prior to the date of the notification, as they have successfully completed the course in 2005. Therein, the Apex Court was considering an administrative order clarifying that eligibility could be determined with reference to the date of completion of examination if result had been declared by the time promotion was considered. Here, the position is admittedly different. 11. As a general rule, the candidates should have acquired qualification as on the last date fixed for receipt of the application. Herein, a more beneficial provision has been introduced by the Commission as Clause 19 of the General Condition. The affidavit filed by the University and the communications Exts.P2 and P3 will not save the writ petitioners, and the date of completion of the course in April 2005 cannot be taken as the valid one to hold that they have successfully passed the examination in April 2005. Even the inscription in the degree certificates that the candidates have completed the course in April 2005 could only mean that they have successfully completed the course. But unless the results are W.P.(C). Nos.24685/07, 24770/07 & 1321/2009 -:8:- published officially for the purpose of considering their qualification for appointment in the particular post, the Commission will be helpless to accept any other document than the documents confirming official publication of the result. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the Commission they had taken up the matter with the University and, only after confirming the date of publication of the result in respect of the petitioners therein, the applications were rejected. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms