REJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues based on common facts arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions, they were jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience W.P.(C) No. 15304 of 2005 is treated as the leading case and facts and documents are referred to hereafter in this judgment in the manner they are set out therein unless otherwise specified.

(2.) The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are graduates possessing B. Sc. (Co-operation & Banking) Degree awarded by the Kerala Agricultural University. As per Ext. P1 draft rules, the said qualification was prescribed as one of the qualifications for appointment to the post of Non-vocational Teacher in General Foundation Course in the Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department. Subsequently, Ext. P2 special rules have been brought into force. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the qualification of B. Sc. (Co-operation & Banking) Degree awarded by the Kerala Agricultural University which was prescribed as one of the qualifications under Ext. P1 was not included as one of the qualifications for the post of Non-vocational Teacher in General Foundation Course in Ext. P2 special rules. Ext. P3 is a representation dated 24.3.2004 from the Associate Dean of the Kerala Agricultural University to the Secretary to Higher Education Department virtually highlighting the necessity to include the aforesaid qualification as one of the qualifications for the aforesaid post. In fact, as per Ext. P3, it was requested to include the aforesaid qualification as a qualification for the post of Non-vocational Teacher in General Foundation Course. Ext. P4 is a recommendation by the subject committee of the Legislative Assembly.

(3.) While so, the Kerala Public Service Commission issued Ext. P5 notification dated 26.4.2005 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Non-vocational Teacher in General Foundation Course in the Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department. Admittedly, in Ext. P5 notification qualifications were prescribed in tune with Ext. P2 special rules. Obviously, B. Sc. (Co-operation & Banking) Degree possessed by the Petitioners was not included as a qualification in Ext. P5. Though the Petitioners are ineligible to submit applications in response to Ext. P5 notification, they submitted applications for selection to the post of Non-vocational Teacher in General Foundation Course in response to Ext. P5. Apprehending that they would not be permitted to appear for the written examination held as part of the selection process, they approached this Court by filing these Writ Petitions. On 7.6.2005 this Court passed an interim order in W.P.(C) No. 17048 of 2005. Based on the same and similar orders, the Respondents permitted the Petitioners therein to participate in the selection process to the post of Non-vocational Teacher (General Foundation) in pursuance of Ext. P5 notification provisionally and subject to the result of the Writ Petitions. Thereupon the Petitioners appeared in the written test. However, the Petitioners were not included in Ext. P6 (Ext. P6 in W.P.(C) No. 17048/2005) short list of candidates selected to be invited for interview. Consequently, the Petitioners were not called for the interview. Later, Ext. P7 (Ext. P7 in W.P.(C) No. 17048/2005) rank list was brought into force on 18.12.2007. Naturally, the Petitioners were not included therein. On 23.6.2007, an amendment was brought into the special rules and the qualification of B. Sc. (Co-operation & Banking), the degree possessed by the Petitioners has been included as one of the qualifications for appointment to the post of Non-vocational Teacher in General Foundation Course. Taking into account the amendment brought into as per Ext. P8 the Petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 17048 and 17114 of 2005 filed petitions for amending the Writ Petition. The said amendment was filed for the purpose of incorporating the prayers to issue a writ of mandamus to the first Respondent to issue an order giving effect to the amendment in Ext. P8 from 12.3.2004, that is the date of Ext. P2 special rules. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioners contend that the Respondents should have permitted the Petitioners to participate in the interview and based on the outcome successful candidates among them should have been included in the rank list.