IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20906 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BALANAND.A.V., ARACKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADOM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. EMPLYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O.. 2. TRAINING OFFICER, RELATED INSTRUCTION CENTRE, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT, KALAMASSERY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20906 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that his claim to be considered for appointment as Helper in Kerala Books and Publications Society, for which Ext.P5 notification was issued, was arbitrarily rejected. According to the petitioner, the qualification he possesses is SSLC and a pass in AIATT examination conducted by the Related Instruction Centre, which is equivalent to KGTE certificate. It is stated that he applied in response to Ext.P5 and his candidature ought to have been considered as he is a qualified candidate. 2. However, referring to Ext.P5 and the qualification prescribed thereunder, the learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner does not possess any of the qualifications prescribed and that it was therefore his candidature was rejected. 3. A reading of Ext.P5 notification issued by the first respondent shows that the qualification prescribed are SSLC and KGTE or MGTE or Machine Work lower certificate with one year experience or Diploma in Printing Technology. It is obvious that the qualification which the petitioner claims to possess is not one of the WPC No.20906/2010 2 enumerated qualifications. On the other hand, what he claims is that his qualification is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in Ext.P5. As far as the equivalency claim put forward by the petitioner is concerned, unless the equivalency claimed is recognised by the Special Rules, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of equivalency. In this case, Ext.P5 advertisement shows that the Rules do not recognise any equivalency, as claimed by the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner is an ineligible candidate and therefore he cannot claim that his candidature should have been considered by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No.20906/2010 3 WPC No.20906/2010 4