IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 13148 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POORNIMA R., MALAYIL HOUSE, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17537 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPIES OF CERTIFICATES SHOWING THE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY SHOWING THE SUBMISSION OF THE THESIS BY THE PETITOINER EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R2 DATED 15.12.2007 EXT.P3(A)-TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 15.12.07 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER ISSUED BY R2 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13148/2009-K, 13716/2009-H, 13751/2009-L, 17537/2009-J &19891/2009-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT In all these writ petitions, the petitioners’ application for appointment have been rejected/sought to be rejected by the Public Service Commission on the ground that they did not acquire the Ph.D. qualification which is one of the essential qualifications for the post in question, as on the last date of submission of the application. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had duly submitted the thesis long prior to the issuance of the notification and therefore the applications ought to have been accepted by the Public Service Commission. The delay on the part of the University cannot be taken as a ground to reject the application, learned counsel for the petitioners submit. It is also pointed out that in Ext.P3(A) produced in W.P.(C) No.13148/2009 whereby a specific stipulation was there that those who have submitted thesis prior to the cut off date, viz. 31.12.2002, are exempted from passing the NET examination. It is therefore argued that different treatment cannot be meted out to candidates who apply for the particular post in question and the delay on the part of the wpc 13148/2009, etc. 2 University could not result in rejecting the applications. Ext.P3(A) is therefore objected to by the petitioners, in these circumstances. 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, learned Standing Counsel for the University and learned Govt. Pleader. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission, reasons have been pointed out to justify the rejection of applications. Reliance is placed on para 19 of the General Conditions. 3. The question is whether the qualification should be acquired as on the last date of application. The said issue is covered against the petitioners in the light of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Mehaboob v. P.S.C. (1995 (2) KLT 718). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment lays down the legal position thus: “Notification inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist was subject to the general conditions fixed in Part II of the notification. Part II contains the relevant rules governing the issue. Rule 19 inter alia stated that qualifications prescribed for a post shall be one acquired by the candidate before the date of application. It means the relevant date with reference to which the qualification is to be ascertained is the date of application. So, on the facts of this case, Public Service Commission must be deemed to have fixed a relevant date for ascertaining the qualification as the date of application. As per Rule 19 of the General Conditions, the candidate must have had wpc 13148/2009, etc. 3 registration as on the date of his application. The date of application is a fixed date as far as the candidate is concerned. In the case of the petitioner it was 6.2.89. On that day he had not obtained the registration from the Kerala State Pharmacy Council. So he was not qualified for the post as per the notification.” In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the rejection of the applications by the Public Service Commission is improper. True that there is delay on the part of the University in awarding the degree. But that may not bind the Commission since they cannot extend the time or exempt any candidate from production of such certificate, as many other candidates would have produced the necessary certificates showing the qualifications as on the last date of receipt of applications. In the above view of the matter, the writ petitions are dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/