IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24856 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. MAHIMA M. RAJ, D/O. MADHURA RAJ, KRISHNAVIJAYAM, VAKKOM.P.O, KADAKKAVUR, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695 306. 2. NANDINI.H, D/O. P. HARIHARAN, NANDANAM, KARUMOM.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 002. BY ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL SMT.SHEEBA SUBAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TRIVNDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF KERALA COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY SC SRI ALEXANDER THOMAS R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 24856 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 JUDGMENT The 1st respondent had invited applications for the post of Lecturer in Government Law Colleges. The qualifications prescribed as per Ext.P5 are the following:- “(1) Degree of Master of Law with at least 55% marks. (2) Experience at the Bar for a period of not less than 3 years. (3) Must have passed a comprehensive test in the concerned subject specifically conducted for the purpose by UGC or any agency duly constituted by the State Government in this behalf. When qualifications are equal, preference shall be given to candidates who possess adequate knowledge in Malayalam.” 2. Though the petitioners claim that they satisfy Sl. Nos.1 and 2 above, admittedly, they do not possess the qualification at Sl.No.3. Therefore they are ineligible as WP(C) 24856/08 2 per Ext.P5. It is in this circumstance this writ petition is filed seeking to quash the qualification in Sl.No.3 which, according to the petitioners, is unnecessary. 3. In my view, the necessity or otherwise of a qualification for recruitment is a matter for the employer to decide. As far as this Court is concerned, this Court need only consider whether in fixing the qualification, there is any element of arbitrariness or anything isolating the fundamental rights of any one of the applicants. Apart from the plea that the objectionable prescription is unnecessary, petitioners have not demonstrated that there is any arbitrariness or anything in isolation of the fundamental rights. If that be so, there is no substance in the writ petition. This writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-