IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 2822 of 2007 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.294/2006 Dated 26/06/2007 .................................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ ROBIN C., RESIDING AT MF-5-4007, VRINDAVAN HOUSING COLONY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-4. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. RAJESH GEORGE, KANNETHUKUNNEL, CHEMMALAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 529. BY ADV. SRI. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT. SG. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC SRI. MUHAMMED AL RAFI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS SRI. S. KRISHNA MOORTHY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Writ Appeal No. 2822 of 2007 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.294/2006 is the appellant. He was an applicant for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Economics under the Department of Collegiate Education, when applications were invited for the same by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Ext.P6 is the notification issued by the P.S.C. The last date for receipt of applications was 31/03/2004. The petitioner claims that he has a Post Graduate Degree with more than 55% marks. He has also cleared the State Level Eligibility Test, held by the Bharathidasan University, which is an accredited agency of the University Grants Commission to hold the said test in Tamil Nadu. Ext.P5 is the certificate issued by the said University to him which will show that he has cleared the State Level Educational Testing for Lectureship. The petitioner was called for the written test by the P.S.C. He participated in the written test and he was included in Ext.P8 short list published by the P.S.C. He was called for interview also as per Ext.P9 call letter. Thereafter, on verification W.A.No.2822 of 2007 -: 2 :- of the original certificates evidencing his qualification, P.S.C took the stand that he is not qualified. As a result, he was not included in Ext.P10 final rank list. So, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation pointing out his grievance. Since the P.S.C did not respond to the said representation, the writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P10 to the extend it does not include him. 2. The petitioner submitted that he is having the qualification prescribed as per the rules. As evident from Ext.P13, the Bharathidasan University of Tamil Nadu held the test as authorised by the University Grants Commission. The said communication would show that the test cleared by him has all India validity for appointment to the post of Lectureship. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P19 communication issued by the State Government on 27/02/2006 that the SLET examination held by the other States before 01/06/2002 can be treated as equivalent to National Eligibility Test held by the U.G.C. 3. The P.S.C resisted the writ petition contending that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is not the one prescribed under the Special Rules. The University Grants Commission filed a counter affidavit stating that it has authorised various agencies in different States of India to W.A.No.2822 of 2007 -: 3 :- conduct the test and the clearance of the test should be treated as equivalent to the National Eligibility Test upto 01/06/2002. The learned Single Judge considering the rival contentions dismissed that writ petition, relying on the judgment of this Court in Abu vs.State of Kerala [2007 (2) ILR 315]. The aggrieved petitioner filed this appeal submitting that the said decision was rendered without reference to the relevant orders of the Government and without taking into consideration the submissions of the University Grants Commission. So, the appellant submits that the said decision requires re- consideration. 4. Elaborating the contentions of the appellant, the learned senior counsel Mr.P.Ravindran submitted that the Special Rules for Collegiate Education Service were framed in the year 1994 and at the relevant time, the scheme for holding the State Eligibility Test by the U.G.C by authorising the state level agencies was not introduced. The learned senior counsel referred to Ext.P13 communication of the U.G.C dated 10/06/1999. This new scheme was introduced with effect from 1998. By Ext.P13, the Bharathidasan University of Tamil Nadu was authorised to conduct the SLET. The petitioner cleared that W.A.No.2822 of 2007 -: 4 :- test. It has got all India validity. It should be treated as equivalent to NET and, therefore, the P.S.C should have treated the petitioner as a qualified hand. The learned senior counsel also submitted that this contention of the petitioner is supported by the State Government in Ext.P19. The U.G.C also supports this submission, it is pointed out. Therefore, the P.S.C should be compelled to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion in Ext.P10, treating that he is a candidate qualified as per the Special Rules, it is submitted. 5. We heard Mr.Alexander Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel for the P.S.C. According to him, the selection by the P.S.C is governed by the qualifications prescribed in the Special Rules. Unless it is amended, the P.S.C cannot accept the qualifications of the petitioner. Ext.P19 issued in 2006, at best, can apply only to future selections and not to a notification issued in 2004, in which the last date for receipt of applications was fixed as 31/03/2004. We also heard the learned Government Pleader, Mr.Benny Gervasis for the first respondent. W.A.No.2822 of 2007 -: 5 :- 6. The qualifications prescribed for the post of lecturer in the Special Rules are the following:- “1. Masters degree in the concerned subject with atleast 55% marks or its equivalent and good academic record. 2. Must have passed a comprehensive test specifically conducted for the purpose by UGC or any agency duly constituted by the State Government in this behalf. When qualifications being equal, preference shall be given to candidates who possess adequate knowledge in Malayalam.” 7. Going by the above prescribed qualifications, the test conducted by the U.G.C or the test conducted by an agency duly appointed by the State Government alone can be accepted. If the Government wanted to include the SLET held by other states, as authorised by the U.G.C, as one among the prescribed qualifications, the same will be in conformity with the U.G.C norms and would have been valid. But as long as the Rules are not amended, we find nothing wrong with the stand of the P.S.C in declining to accept the qualification of the petitioner as one of the prescribed qualifications. We are also inclined to agree with W.A.No.2822 of 2007 -: 6 :- the stand of the P.S.C that Ext.P19 cannot be pressed into service for the present selection. It can apply only to notifications issued subsequent to Ext.P19. But the learned Senior counsel pointed out that it being a clarification, it may apply to the present notification also. If such a contention is accepted, there may be several candidates who may have cleared the State Eligibility Test held by other States but who could not apply because of the conditions notified by the P.S.C. So, the said contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the result, we find nothing wrong with the stand of the P.S.C in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ms