IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 20548 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAJAYAKUMAR T, AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.THANKARAJAN, KUTTAKUZHY, RODARIKATHU VEEDU,ANAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (RULES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER E.M.ABDUL KHADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.20548/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 8.6.2009. P2:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST. P3:- COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE. P4:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 21/2011 0 & ARD DTD. 1.7.2011. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.D 19.7.11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................. W.P.(C).NO.20548 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT The grievance projected by the petitioner in this case is with regard to the course pursued by the respondents in restricting the persons like the petitioners from participating in the selection process for appointment to the last grade stating that they are higher qualified; which according to the petitioner violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed from the part of respondents 1 and 2 and the third respondent/PSC has filed a separate counter affidavit rebutting the averments and allegations raised in the writ petition. It is pointed out by the respondents that, by virtue of the mandate under Rule 10(a)(i) Part II of KS & SSR, it is for the Government to fix the educational qualification and accordingly G.O.(MS)No.21/2011/P&ARD dated 1.7.2011 was issued for effecting appointments, based on modified qualification, making it clear that amendment to the relevant Special Rules would be issued separately. With W.P.(C).NO.20548 OF 2011 : 2 : regard to the qualification and such other aspects in respect of the other posts concerned, it is pointed out that the present educational qualifications for the various posts are not in conformity with the present professional requirement for various posts in the State and hence it requires timely revision. It is further pointed out that there are various other posts in Government service where the qualification is Plus-2/ Degree/other higher qualifications, for which degree holders like the petitioner can also apply and get selected. 3. By fixing the new qualification for the Last Grade Servants, the candidates who possess lower qualifications will have better chances to enter in Government Service and they will continue in the Last Grade Service. It was after considering the various aspects, that the qualifications were amended and the relevant Government Order was issued stipulating that the qualification required was a pass in Standard VII in respect of Class-IV appointment and that the candidates should not have acquired any degree. The stand taken by the aforesaid modification has been issued W.P.(C).NO.20548 OF 2011 : 3 : by the Government on the basis of the recommendations issued by the PSC as stated in para-2 of their counter affidavit. The stand of the Government is fully supported. by the third respondent/PSC as well and this Court does not find any reason to disagree. Further, as per the the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A,Nos.1117,1314 &1660/2007, it was observed that, if it was the intention of University to give opportunity in public employment to those with lesser qualification or no qualification, it was not for the court to hold that by excluding candidates with higher qualification, the University was acting unreasonably or unfairly in any manner. It was also observed that, if such candidates with higher qualifications were considered, the purpose of prescribing qualification as above for the post in question itself would be defeated. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the issue is squarely covered by the law declared by the Division Bench as aforesaid. No interference is warranted. W.P.(C).NO.20548 OF 2011 : 4 : The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. cl