IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21399 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. JACOB.A.J, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE,PALAKKAD. 2. K.LEELA,DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 3. ANANDAN R., DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(HOUSING) TALUK OFFICE, TIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE AND CONVENOR , DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER) LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21399 OF 2010 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7, by which the 1st respondent has rejected Ext.P6 representation submitted by the 3rd petitioner claiming exemption from passing Criminal Judicial Test for the purpose of promotion to the post of Tahsildar. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners are Deputy Tahsildars aspiring for promotion to the post of Tahsildars. As per the Special Rules, one of the qualification is pass in Criminal Judicial Test, which admittedly the petitioners have not passed. However, they claim exemption on the strength of Rule 13 A of the General Rules. 3. This issue was raised by several persons including the third petitioner before this Court. The issue was finally decided by a Division bench in Ext.P3 judgment where it was held that pass in Criminal Judicial Test is a basic qualification, which cannot be exempted under Rule 13A of the General Rules. Against the said judgment, petitioners had filed an SLP before the Apex Court. While the SLP was pending, according to the petitioners, the PSC WPC No. 21399/10 :2 : issued Ext.P4 stating that pass in Criminal Judicial Test is a special qualification, to which Rule 13A applies. According to the petitioners, in order to claim exemption on the strength of Ext.P4, they sought withdrawal of the SLP and accordingly, by Ext.P5 order, the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, they submitted Ext.P6 representation claiming exemption from passing Criminal Judicial Test on the strength of Rule 13 A of the General Rules. However, by Ext.P7, the Government rejected the request for exemption on the basis that pass in the Criminal Judicial Test is a basic qualification. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7. 4. Irrespective of the fact that PSC has taken a different view, fact remains that, as at present, the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment that pass in Criminal Judicial Test is a basic qualification, which cannot be exempted under Rule 13 A of the General Rules, holds the field. If the said law governs the field, the view taken by the Government in Ext.P7 cannot be faulted. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp