IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23334 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANUJA.N., W/O.BABU, VAISHNAVI, A.K.G.NAGAR, PAZHAYAKADA, THIRUPURAM. 2. A.L.BEENA, W/O.RUSSEL RAJ, THERIVILA VEEDU, MUTHUKUMMAL.P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 3. M.USHA, T.C.21/123 SANTHI NIVAS, KARAMANA, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. M.EMALDA, ALUMOODU JUNCTION, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THULASI HILL, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL-P.S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.23334 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners were applicants for appointment to the post of Upper Primary School Assistants (Tamil) pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. They appeared for the written examination conducted as part of the selection process. Thereafter, they were called upon for certificate verification as part of the interview. On such verification, it was found that the first petitioner possessed B.Ed only in Natural Science and second petitioner possessed B.Ed only in Mathematics. In the case of third and fourth petitioners, it was found that they possessed B.Ed only in Biological Science. Since they did not possess B.Ed in Tamil, the applications submitted by them were rejected. It is feeling aggrieved by the said rejection of their applications that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioners, Ext.P1 notification prescribes only a pass in S.S.L.C or P.D.C and a degree in any subject and B.Ed. Hence, according to them, the stand of the respondents that they lack qualification W.P.(C). NO.23334 OF 2010 2 on the ground of non-possession of B.Ed in Tamil cannot be sustained. 3. In the light of the rival contentions, it is apposite to refer to the relevant portion of clause 7 in Ext.P1 notification:- “OR A degree in any subject and B.Ed/BT/LT (in Tamil) conferred by or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. NOTE:-1. In the absence of candidates with TTC (Tamil) of Kerala and B.Ed Tamil holders from the Universities in Kerala, candidates with TTC (Tamil) of Madras or candidates with Diploma in Teacher Education (Regular) of Tamil Nadu Government shall be considered for appointment.” A perusal of the above extracted portion from Ext.P1 notification would reveal that the qualification prescribed was degree in any subject and B.Ed/BT/LT (in Tamil) conferred by or recognized by universities in Kerala. The contention of the petitioners is that in the absence of persons holding the qualifications mentioned in the note thereunder, persons with Diploma in Teacher Education (Regular) of Tamil Nadu Government would considered for appointment to the said post. But, the petitioners did not possess the said qualification as well. In fact, the petitioners rely on the said fact only to canvass the position that B.Ed qualification possessed by them is a higher qualification than the Diploma in Teacher Education (Regular) of Tamil Nadu Government and therefore, they should be treated as qualified W.P.(C). NO.23334 OF 2010 3 for appointment against the said post. I cannot countenance with the said contention. The petitioners did not have a case that Kerala Public Service Commission has issued Ext.P1 notification deviating from the prescribed qualifications under the Special Rules. Admittedly, the petitioners did not possess the qualifications prescribed under the notification. As regards prescription of qualifications for selection to a particular post, it is not a matter for this Court to decide. When the Special Rules prescribe certain qualifications and the Public Service Commission issues a notification for selection in tune with the Special Rules, such a lawful action cannot be interfered with. In short, this Court cannot find any illegality in the action on the part of the respondents in rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioners. The said action on the part of the respondents therefore, requires no judicial review. There is no merit in this Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010