IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 13226 OF 2010(S) -------------------------- {O.A.NO.797/200 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................. PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.P.SURENDRAN,GDS MD (OFFICIATING), CHEMPAZHANTHY PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NORTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NORTH SUB DIVISION, CHALAI. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13226 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The petitioner applied for the post of Grama Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer of Chempazhanthi Post Office. The qualification prescribed is 8th standard, preference to be given to candidates with matriculation. The petitioner possesses only the qualification of 8th standard. There is only one post. The notification was issued in terms of the prescribed qualifications. Thereafter, the establishment invited for interview, only those candidates who possessed matriculation. Admittedly, as against one vacancy, there were sufficient number of candidates, among matriculates. The petitioner challenged his exclusion from interview. The Tribunal was not impressed to uphold the petitioner's contention. W.P.(C).No.13226 of 2010 :: 2 :: 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned action of the establishment amounts to wholesale reservation in favour of a category among those in the field of choice in terms of the recruitment rules. What has been done is not a reservation, but is only weeding out those who would be away from the priority by application of the preference to be given to matriculate. It is not a case where the Department has isolated the petitioner. They have applied a yardstick of weeding out those who were not matriculates. Matriculation being the preferred qualification, we do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the Tribunal having affirmed the action of the establishment. We are also not impressed with the contention that the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of this court in Minimol v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit {2010 (1) KLT 74}. That issue related to an action whereby the W.P.(C).No.13226 of 2010 :: 3 :: University excluded persons with very hgh qualifications from being considered at par with those who had the “ability to read and write”. This court took the view that to push forward those who have only the “ability to read and write” in public employment, the University had acted fairly in excluding those with higher qualifications. We are, therefore, of the view that the said decision has no bearing on the legal issue in the case on hand. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.