IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27736 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, R.VENUGOPAL, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. COLLEGE OF FORESTRY STUDENTS UNION, REP. BY ITS UNION PRESIDENT, KIRAN THOMAS MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR SRI.M.T.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FORESTRY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. ASSOCIATE DEAN, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR - 680 651. 5. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LIJU STEPHEN BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27736 of 2011(N) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXT.P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION CATEGORY NO.293/11 GAZETTE DATED 15.9.2011 EXT.P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN GO.(P)NO.73/2010/ F & WLD DATED 21.10.2010. EXT.P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KERALA ENGINEERING AGRICULTURE & MEDICAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATION NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.10 EXT.P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION CATEGORY NO.101/2004 MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 4.5.2004 EXT.P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRANCE AND TRAINING RULES (REVISED) 2004, FOR FOREST RANGE OFFICERS. EXT.P-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL FOREST POLICY DATED 7.12.88 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 27736 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th October, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners, Parent Teachers Association, College of Forestry and Students Union have filed this writ petition challenging the action of the second respondent in prescribing specifications regarding height, which is in excess of what was earlier prescribed for selection to the post of Range Forest Officer. Apart from the educational qualifications prescribed, a candidate applying for selection to the post of Range Forest Officer as per the revised stipulations, has to possess a height of 168 cms and chest measurement of 81 cms and a chest expansion of 5 cms. In the case of female candidates the height stipulated is 157 cms. Apart from the physical measurements a physical efficiency test is also required to be successfully passed by all aspiring candidates. According to the petitioners, as per the Entrance and Training Rules (Revised) 2004 issued by the Central Government for Forest Range Officers, the minimum standard height is 163 cms, chest measurement 84 cm with an expansion of 5 cm. The height prescribed as per the Central Rules for female candidates is 150 WPC 27736/2011 2 cms. Therefore, according to the petitioners, prescription of minimum height in excess of what is prescribed by the Central Government is illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that many persons had joined the B.Sc honors (Forestry course) of the fourth respondent University acting on the strength of the specifications contained in Ext.P3 prospectus. According to the petitioners, since all persons who do not satisfy the requirement of height stipulated by the second respondent are excluded from the selection, their career options are substantially reduced, causing injustice to them. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate directions setting aside the higher specifications insisted upon by the second respondent. 2. I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well as the standing counsel who appears for the second respondent Kerala Public Service Commission. 3. It is well settled that the appointing authority has the power to prescribe qualifications for any post. The respondents therefore are certainly within their rights in insisting on the possession of a particular height, weight or chest measurement as the necessary criteria for selection to the post of Forest Range Officers. Such specifications are stipulated and insisted upon WPC 27736/2011 3 considering the requirements of the service to which the recruitment is contemplated. Such specifications are best left to be stipulated by the appointing authority. This Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of insisting upon such stipulations. It is no doubt true that such stipulations would result in excluding from the zone of consideration people who do not possess such physical statistics as are insisted on. The classification that necessarily follows on the basis of such physical requirements cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 4. It is no doubt true that the prospectus issued by the fifth respondent specifies a height which is less than what is stipulated by the second respondent. However, the stipulations contained in Ext.P3 are for admission to that particular course, in the present case, the B.Sc honors (Forestry course). The stipulations contained in Ext.P3 cannot limit the powers of the government to stipulate a different physical requirement for selection and appointment to the post that is notified. Ext.P5 rules are issued by the Central Government. A reading of the rules show that what is prescribed therein is the minimum physical specification that is necessary. That does not fetter the powers of the State Government/sponsoring authority to stipulate a higher specification WPC 27736/2011 4 regarding height and chest expansion. The contention of the petitioners that the stipulation of height in excess of what is prescribed by Exts.P3 and P5 is unsustainable, cannot be accepted. I do not find any grounds to grant any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 27736/2011 5