SHEEBA, A. K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Original Petitions, which got referred to a Division Bench, were heard together in view of the identity of the issues canvassed. The petitioners are graduates who also possessed the qualification of B. Ed. In response to a notification of the Public Service Commission, inviting applications to the post of Lower Primary School Assistants and Upper Primary School Assistants (LPSA and UPSA) in the Government schools, the petitioners had responded. It is nobody's case that they were having the (exact) qualification prescribed by the notification. The Public Service Commission had rejected the applications, and bad went on with the process of selection, excluding the petitioners. It was at that juncture that the Original Petitions happened to be filed. Though petitions urging interlocutory orders facilitating the petitioners to participate in the written examinations had been presented and pressed, the Division Bench did not grant the reliefs as grayed for. That order as become final. The selection has proceeded thereafter and is at the final stages. Urgency for hearing and disposal had been expressed by the petitioners pointing out that once the selection process is complete, the writ petitions are likely to become infructuous. Taking note of the request so made, the petitions were taken up for hearing out of turn.

(2.) Averments made in O. P. No. 2869 of 2001 and documents referred to therein could be taken up as a representative case. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Public Service Commission in one of the cases and it has been adopted in the rest of the petitions. On behalf of the petitioners, we had opportunity to hear M/s N. Nandakumara Menon, Anu Sivaraman, Harish, V. Rajendran, Jeena Joseph, K. G. Eldho and P. V. Mohanan. Mr. P. C. Sasidharan, Standing Counsel represented the Public Service Commission and we had beard Mr. Roy Chacko, Sr. Government Pleader for the State. Opposing the claims made by the petitioners, we had also heard Advocate Sri Vishnu, who represented persons who had got themselves impleaded to the proceedings. At the outset itself, we may observe that we were not impressed by the plea of the petitioners as regards any legal injury sustained and are constrained to hold that the challenge posed is misconceived. We will deal with the contentions as below.

(3.) Ext. P - 1 dated 8th June 1999 is the notification issued by the Public Service Commission. The prayers as urged in the Original Petitions, are for quashing the above to the extent it seeks to conduct the selection to the notified posts, excluding B. Ed. holders. Such decision leading to Ext. P - 2, according to them, is illegal and a declaration is sought to the effect that the petitioners are legally entitled for selection and appointment to the notified posts, in the light of the Judgment of this Court in W. A. No. 744 of 1999.