IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 22977 of 2008(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSEKUTTY V.J., VARAKUKALAPRAMBIL,POONJAR SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 582. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R2, ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON 07/10/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.22977 of 2008-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT “CR” 1.Petitioner applied for being considered for appointment as Junior Clerk (Co-operative Societies), by direct recruitment, in the Department of Co-operation in the Government of Kerala, following Ext.P1 notification by the Public Service Commission calling for applications from persons possessing qualifications enlisted in column 7 of that notification. Following the objective type written test, a short list was published on 29-2- 2008 and the petitioner was called for interview on 9-4-2008. Upon verification of documents, the first respondent Commission took the view that petitioner did not possess the qualification WP(C)22977/08 -: 2 :- prescribed for the post. The petitioner then submitted a petition before the Chairman of the Interview Board requesting that he be allowed to appear for the interview provisionally. Following that, he was admitted for interview, subject to further scrutiny and orders regarding his qualification. He, thereafter, made Ext.P7 representation to the Secretary of the Commission. That did not find favour and the first respondent published Ext.P8 ranked list excluding the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 2.The qualifications enumerated in Ext.P1 are in pari materia with the qualifications prescribed for appointment by direct recruitment to Junior Inspector, in the Table in Rule 5 of the Kerala Co-operative Subordinate Service Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”. That provides for different alternate qualifications, of which prescriptions at Sl.Nos.(A) and (B) are relevant to decide this case. They read as WP(C)22977/08 -: 3 :- follows: (A) B.Com degree of a recognised University with Co-operation as special subject or (B)(i) B.A. or B.Sc. or B.Com degree of a recognised University and (ii) Higher Diploma in Co-operation (H.D.C.). 3.The petitioner possesses B.Com degree given by the Faculty of Commerce, University of Kerala. Ext.P2 certificate shows that he has been admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Commerce, having been placed, among other things, in the Second Class in Part III (with Accounting as Main Subject) and Commercial Law, Banking, Business Management and Accounting/Co-operation as Subsidiary Subjects). The petitioner does not have Higher Diploma in Co-operation to fall within Clause (B). Therefore, the question raised is whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner is a B.Com degree with Co-operation as WP(C)22977/08 -: 4 :- “Special Subject”, satisfying Clause (A). 4.According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 is one where Co-operation is a special subject, though it is called a subsidiary subject in Ext.P2 degree certificate. Per contra, the contention of the Commission is that, in terms of Ext.P2, co- operation is not a special subject but only one among the subsidiary subjects, while Accounting is the main subject that the petitioner learnt for the course that led to Ext.P2 certificate and therefore, he does not possess the prescribed qualification under the Rules and statutory rules. 5.The prescription is of a qualification. A reading of Clauses (A) and (B) among the qualifications itself would show that the framers of the Rules were conscious of the fact that B.Com decree can be classified into different types. This is why while a person possessing B.Com degree with Co- operation as special subject, going by Clause WP(C)22977/08 -: 5 :- (A), does not require any other qualification, a person who possesses a B.Com degree without any further adjective as to the speciality or identity of the subject, requires Higher Diploma in Co-operation also, as provided by Clause (B). 6.The word “special” denotes something that is particular: peculiar: distinctive: exceptional: additional to ordinary: detailed: confined or mainly applied to a particular subject, while “subsidiary” always denotes something subordinate (see Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary). To be subsidiary to something is to be connected with it but less important than it. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary provides the example: “I am taking History as a subsidiary subject, to mean that the said subject is not studied in as great depth as a main subject.” In contradistinction thereto, the words “major; key; central; principal; chief; prime”, are treated as synonyms of the word “main”. (again see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary). A “Subsidiary WP(C)22977/08 -: 6 :- Subject” is not a “Special Subject”. What is required in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules and Clause (A) in the third column against Category No.2 in the Table thereunder denotes the study of a subject, in quality, additional to ordinary; detailed and exceptional and not the study of that subject as a subsidiary one. 7.Now, as rightly pointed out by the Commission, a perusal of Ext.P3 mark list issued to the petitioner by the University of Kerala would show that Accounting and Co-operation are two main subjects offered by that University among Group C Main Subjects. Petitioner studied Accounting Main as the Main Subject under Group C and Commercial Law, Accounting/Co-operation, Banking and Business Management as Subsidiary Subjects under Group B, while he had not studied Co-operation Main as a main subject under Group C. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he studied Co- operation as the “special” subject leading to the award of Ext.P2 degree to him. WP(C)22977/08 -: 7 :- 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client was admitted to written examination and was subjected to interview. In this regard, I am inclined to accept the version of the Commission that the eligibility of candidates were not verified before the objective type test and all those who had claimed to be educationally qualified, going by the applications, were admitted for the test. There is no illegality in the petitioner having been weeded out at the stage of interview and being permitted to participate in the interview provisionally, after which the Commission decided that the petitioner was unqualified. 9.It was further urged on behalf of the petitioner that he is 50% physically handicapped as evidenced by Ext.P5. Without the basic qualification, the petitioner is not entitled to contend that he was eligible for being considered. WP(C)22977/08 -: 8 :- 10.With this, the petitioner could have aspired only to be treated as the holder of a B.Com degree of a recognised University without Co- operation as special subject. If that were so, unless he possesses Higher Diploma in Co- operation, which he does not have, he was unqualified for being considered for appointment in terms of the Rules and Ext.P1 notification. 11.This takes to the next submission on behalf of the petitioner based on Rule 7(1)(a) of the Rules which provides that those Senior Inspectors and Junior Inspectors who have not already undergone training in Co-operation shall successfully undergo the course Junior Diploma in Co-operation and that, therefore, the petitioner could be permitted to join as a B.Com degree holder without Co-operation as special subject and then be permitted to undergo JDC course. That is not the purport of Rule 7(1)(a). Even if the petitioner is to be treated as a B.Com degree WP(C)22977/08 -: 9 :- holder without Co-operation as special subject, he ought to possess HDC and not JDC. That apart, Rule 7 does not govern the field of direct recruitment. It would apply only to other modes of recruitment. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/061008 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.