IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19239 of 2008(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ SAJEEB.K., KANNARAMBIL HOUSE, KALADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, FOOD CRAFT INSTITUTE (KERALA) SOCIETY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-683104. 2. THE SECRETARY, AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19239/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT First respondent, vide Ext.P7 invited applications for the post of Demonstrator in the Food Craft Institute. One of the qualifications prescribed in this regard is a pass in Hotel Management & Catering Technology (Certificate Course) from the State Technical Education Board with not less than 60% marks. This is apart from experience in a reputed hotel, at least for three years. The primary qualification is a Degree in Hotel Management & catering Technology or a Degree/Diploma from the Hotel Management Institute having recommendation of AICTE. Going by the qualifications possessed by the petitioner, as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3, he does not seem to be qualified in terms of the notification, Ext.P7. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner P.K.Santhamma and learned counsel for the first respondent Mr.Gopalakrishnakurup. 3. In circumstances where the petitioner is not W.P.(C).19239/2008 2 qualified in terms of the notification, I do not think it is justified to issue any direction to the first respondent. Written test forming part of the selection is over on 15.6.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection process had been undertaken earlier but that was never completed. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submits that only a notification was issued earlier and there was some defect in the notification. Therefore, process was not gone through. Counsel for the petitioner submits that some relaxation in the qualification must have been offered in favour of the Scheduled Caste candidates. I find from Ext.P7 that the principles of reservation are made applicable to the selection in question and that there is a relaxation offered to the reserved candidates in the matter of age. First respondent cannot be compelled to offer further relaxation as such in the absence of any statutory rules. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs