IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 W.P(C).No. 27511 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RENNY THOMAS.K, KANJIRAKKOT HOUSE, KOCHI PALACE.P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN RESPONDENT: --------------- COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI-22, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 27511 OF 2008 (A) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P11. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent University to issue a fresh notification on the basis of the proceedings of selection committee for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant Grade II in the Department of Computer Science and complete the selection process by including the petitioner also in the ranklist. 2. The controversy is in relation to recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant Grade II(Computer Science), for which the University had issued Ext.P6 notification inviting applications. The prescribed qualification is, in addition to First Class Degree with PGDCA from a recognised institution, a candidate should also have a First Class Diploma (3 year) in Computer Applications from a recognised Polytechnic. This is in addition to experience of 3 years. Admittedly, the petitioner's qualification is Graduation in Science with First Class and a 1 year Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from IHRDE. Ext.P2 is the Diploma Certificate. 3. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P1 when temporary WPC 27511/08 :2 : appointments were made on contract basis, petitioner was selected and was appointed and that it was while so that Ext.P6 was issued. Soon after Ext.P6 was issued, realising that he will not be called for the written test or interview, petitioner filed an Original petition before this court as OP 8070/01. In that OP, this court passed Ext.P7 interim order, directing the University to permit the petitioner to take part in the written test subject to further orders to be passed in the case. Thereafter, Ext.P7(a) order was passed directing that the petitioner be permitted to take part in the interview as well. The original petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment directing the University to finalise the selection, giving effect to the interim orders, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The University could not finalise the selection process within the time specified in the judgment. Therefore, the University filed Ext.P9 application before this court for enlargement of time by 6 months. In the affidavit filed, it was stated that based on the written test, a short list of 32 candidates has been prepared including the petitioner. It is also stated that the Syndicate in their meeting held on 25/1/2002 considered the short list and resolved to conduct an interview for filling up the vacancies. Extension of time was allowed and the WPC 27511/08 :3 : petitioner was also interviewed. However, in Ext.P11 ranklist published by the University on 9/9/2008, University has not included the petitioner's name and it is at that stage, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Exts. P7 and P7(a) interim orders and Ext.P8 judgment, the University could not have declined to consider the petitioner. According to him, in Ext.P8 judgment, this Court has directed that the interim orders should be given effect to. 5. Yet another contention that is raised is that the petitioner is qualified in terms of the notification. Reference is also made to a communication dated 17/9/2008 obtained by the petitioner from the University invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, where it is stated that the Registrar had sought remarks of the Head of the Department as to whether the One year Diploma held by the petitioner can be equated to the 3 year Diploma from a Poly Technic specified in Ext.P6 notification. 6. University has filed a statement, in which, it is stated that the petitioner was not selected or ranked because of the fact that he did not possess the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P6. It is stated that he is only a First Class Science Graduate and a Post Graduate Diploma holder in WPC 27511/08 :4 : Computer Application. According to the University, this is not the prescribed qualification and therefore, the petitioner could not have been selected. 7. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is relying entirely on Exts. P7 and P7(a) interim orders, Ext.P8 judgment and Ext.P9 affidavit filed by the University seeking enlargement of time for complying with Ext.P8 judgment. It is true that in Ext.P9 affidavit, it has been stated by the University that in the short list of 32 candidates, petitioner's name has also been included and that the Syndicate has resolved to interview the candidates. 8. In my view, the inclusion of the petitioner in the short list by itself does not carry his candidature any further. The reason is that at the time when Ext.P9 affidavit was filed, OP 8070/01 was also disposed of. In that judgment, this court directed that selection process shall be finalised giving effect to the interim orders passed by this court. Exts. P7 and P7(a) are the interim orders referred to in the judgment. Ext.P7 order shows that his participation in the written test will be subject to further orders to be passed in the OP. Ext.P7(a) interim order says that petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the interview and that the results shall not be WPC 27511/08 :5 : declared. Evidently, his participation in the written test and interview are provisional and subject to further orders in the writ petition. In the judgment, apart from stating that the selection shall be finalised, this Court did not direct that irrespective of whether the petitioner is eligible or not, his candidature should be accepted by the University. Exts. P7 and P7(a) being provisional, his participation is always subject to his eligibility to be considered for the post. It was because the petitioner was yet to be interviewed at the time when Ext.P9 affidavit was filed, the University included him in the list of shortlisted candidates. Therefore, his participation in the written test, interview or inclusion in the short list is always subject to his eligibility to be considered for the post. In my view, therefore, Exts. P7, P7(a), P8 or P9 does not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. 9. In so far as the communication obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act is concerned, it talks about the query from the Registrar to the Head of the Department whether the qualification held by the petitioner can be equated to what is prescribed in Ext.P6. That document itself therefore testifies that the petitioner does not possess the qualification prescribed by the University. Equation of WPC 27511/08 :6 : qualification is a matter to be done by the appointing authority. There is nothing on record to show that the One Year Post Graduate Diploma held by the petitioner has been equated with the Diploma specified for recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant, Grade II viz, First Class Diploma (3 year) in Computer Application. Therefore, in the absence of anything to show that the qualification held by the petitioner is equated with the qualification prescribed in Ext.P6, the petitioner cannot claim to be considered for the post. 10. True, in Ground C of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that his name was excluded after inclusion in the ranklist. University has contradicted the statement by saying that he was not selected at all as he was unqualified. Apart from making this averment in Ground C, there is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner was included in Ext.P11 ranklist. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has the prescribed qualification. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp