MAHESH KUMAR S Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is working as Senior Foreman in the binding section of the Kerala University Press. THE said establishment is under the University of Kerala. According to the petitioner, he is fully qualified to be promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent in the press, which fell vacant on 30.6.2006. But overlooking the better claim of the petitioner, the third respondent was appointed to the said vacancy is the complaint of the petitioner. It is challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, petitioner has been overlooked for such promotion on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the qualification prescribed for the post by the Kerala University First Ordinances 1978. In the same extract of which is Ext.P1, the qualification prescribed is Licentiate of Printing Technology (LPT) from any recognised printing institution. In the absence of candidates possessing LPT qualification, group certificate in Printing Technology of KGTE or MGTE is also accepted as equivalent qualification. The petitioner does not have either of these two qualifications. But the petitioner has Diploma in Printing Technology (DPT). The petitioner's contention is that DPT is equivalent to LPT as recognised by the Government in Ext. P9 Government Order. The petitioner contends that Ext. P9 Government Order is applicable to the employees of the University by virtue of Chapter 4 of the Kerala University First Statutes r/w Rule 10(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. ACCORDING to the petitioner, by virtue of powers under Rule 10(ii) of K.S. & S.S.R, the Government has issued Ext.P9 order holding that Diploma in Printing Technology awarded by the Institute of Printing Technology, Shornur should be accepted as equivalent to Licentiate of Printing Technology of Madras (LPT). The petitioner therefore submits that, contrary to the finding of the University, the petitioner does have all the qualifications prescribed in the First Ordinances and therefore the petitioner being the senior as between the petitioner and the third respondent, the petitioner should have been promoted to the vacancy in question.

(3.) APART from that, in the decision relied upon by the standing counsel for the University, a learned Judge of this Court went to the extent of holding that even a resolution adopted by the Syndicate in respect of an alternate qualification cannot be applied for a selection unless pursuant to that resolution of the Ordinances are amended appropriately. That decision has been upheld by the Division Bench. In fact, in that decision, exactly identical question arose, of course, the selection was in respect of the post of Junior Foreman (Printing) and the qualification prescribed was also different. But the question that arose for consideration in that decision was whether instead of the qualification prescribed in the Ordinances, an alternate qualification accepted by a resolution of the Syndicate of the University as equivalent to the prescribed qualification can be accepted as sufficient qualification without amending the Ordinances in tune with the resolution of the Syndicate. In that decision, the learned Judge held that unless and until the University Ordinances are appropriately amended, accepting the alternate qualification also as equivalent to the qualification already prescribed, such qualification cannot be taken into account for the purpose of deciding eligibility of the employee concerned for appointment. I am of the opinion that the ratio of that decision which has been upheld by the Division Bench squarely applies to the facts of this case. That being so, I have to necessarily hold that the petitioner does not possess the qualification prescribed in the Ordinances for the post in question and therefore he cannot be considered for promotion. The Government order accepting DPT as an equivalent qualification for LPT cannot also be pressed into service for deciding the eligibility of the petitioner for consideration for promotion. In the above view, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.