SWAPNA SUKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE original petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are filed essentially challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's affirmation - of the Kerala Public Service Commission, that an aspirant to the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) should have studied Physics and Chemistry at the graduate level or at the post graduate level. The second complaint is that the PSC had deviated from the terms of its notification dated 30.4.2008 and such deviation is impermissible. The third issue is as to whether the refusal to advise the petitioners on the ground that they have not studied Physics and Chemistry at the graduate level or post graduate level amounts to hostile discrimination, since the PSC had, as a matter of fact, advised similarly placed candidates from the same list.

(2.) SNR .Adv.N.Dharmadan and Adv.Sandesh Raja.K. argued on behalf of the petitioners that the approach adopted by the Tribunal is wholly faulty and the PSC could not have arrived at any such decision on the basis of the Tribunal's order in O.A.No.370 of 2012, as affirmed by this Court in OP(KAT).No.3407 of 2012, since the issue therein was as to whether Polymer Chemistry could be treated as equivalent or as an alternative main subject in lieu of Chemistry. It was further argued that the PSC could not have changed the rules of the selection after issuing the notification and that since the similarly placed persons have been advised from the same list, it is wholly impermissible to exclude the petitioners from being advised as such exclusion would amount to hostile discrimination. Reference was pointedly made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Udayan v. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd.[2011(3) KLT 952 (FB)]. Adv.Sandesh Raja further argued that his clients are also aggrieved because they were deprived of opportunity of hearing before the Tribunal, since the first among the cases decided, was instituted before the Tribunal, later in point of time than O.A.No.344 of 2013, which gives rise to OP(KAT). No.1861 of 2013 and hence, the application of the Tribunal's decision in O.A.No.368 of 2013 as a precedent in the other cases, without further consideration, has resulted in injustice.

(3.) ADV .Noble Mathew, the learned Senior Government Pleader had to face our query as to why the State Government had not filed any pleadings before the Tribunal, at least in cases where it was a party. Faced with the situation that it was for the Government to primarily speak up when an issue as to qualifications is in issue, he candidly, but persuasively, stated that appropriate instructions would be ensured in this regard, for future guidance.