IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 31270 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RANJIT S.CHAVAN, DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, MUMBAI, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 11, HORNIMAN CIRCLE, BOTAWALA BUILDING, OPP.TOWN HALL, FORT, MUMBAI-400 023, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PROF. S.GOPINATHAN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AII INDIA INSTITUTE OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, 2ND FLOOR, SOPANAM COMPLEX, PEROORKADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 005, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI R4 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 31270/2008-V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/11/1958 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HELTH TO ALL THE STATE GOVERNMENTS AND UNION TERRITORIES. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.766/62/HLD DATD 20/10/1962. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.923/63/HLD DATED 17/12/1963. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.24/89/H&FWD DATED 23/01/1989. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.344/2008/H&FWD DATED 08/07/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SYLLABUS OF DPHS IN THE SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SYLLABUS OF DHIC IN THE SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR HELTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).31270/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the Director General of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai. It is stated that the Institute has its registered office at Mumbai, and it undertakes research studies, organizes and conducts specialized courses, seminars, conferences and provides an open forum for the officials and non officials of Municipal Administration. It is further contended that the Institution is a pioneer Government recognized and autonomous educational Institute approved by the Government of India and that it has experience of more than 80 years in the Education Training and Research field. 2. The Institute started the Sanitary Inspector Diploma Course in many important cities in the country. Two regional centres 2 of the Institute are currently functioning in Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi. Reference is made to Ext.P2 Government Order, which had recognized the Sanitary Inspector certificate awarded by the petitioner's Institute as an alternate qualification of Sanitary Inspectors certificate/Health Inspectors' certificate prescribed for certain posts, main among them being Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Health Services Department. The same prescription was carried over in Ext.P3 and thereafter, in Ext.P4 Government Order issued on 23.1.1989 as well. Apparently, since the qualification acquired by a candidate trained by the petitioner's institution was considered to be sufficient for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II, according to the petitioner, it continued to offer the course in the two main centres within Kerala. 3 3. Petitioner's grievance arose out of Ext.P5 whereby the Government had amended the qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II. By Ext.P5, dated 8.7.2008, Government had decided to recognize a diploma in Health Inspector Grade-II alone as a qualification for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II. In other words, alternate qualification offered by the petitioner's Institute hitherto, ceased to be recognized as a qualification for the post in question, with effect from Ext.P5 order dated 8.7.2008. This has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Pirappancode Sudheer and learned Government Pleader. 5. Petitioner is not an applicant for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II. 4 Even otherwise it is open to the Government to prescribe the qualification for a post in Civil service. Consequently, the Government also has a power to amend the qualification. Additional qualification could also be prescribed. Alternate qualification originally prescribed can be deleted. These are all within the legitimate powers of the Government. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has no authority to challenge the change in the qualification, Government's power to change such qualification and amend the same also cannot be questioned. I am therefore, of the view that the challenge to Ext.P5 is misconceived. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Institute has approached the Government with a detailed representation pointing out the wisdom behind the qualification that is afforded by 5 the petitioner's Institute as an alternate qualification for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II. He prays for a direction to the Government to take note of Ext.P8. 7. Ext.P8 representation is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Welfare. This Court can issue a writ only to the concerned Government official. I have gone though Ext.P8 and according to me, it merits consideration by the Government. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh copy of Ext.P8 before the second respondent. If it is done within four weeks from today, it shall be looked into seriously by the concerned Department and appropriate action taken within four months from the date of production of this judgment along with the representation. A representative of the petitioner shall be 6 heard before a decision is taken and at any rate, an order shall be communicated in this regard to the petitioner. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs