SHADU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per Ext. P1 Recruitment Rules, a pass in V.H.S.E. in Live Stock Management is the first among the two qualifications prescribed for being appointed as Live Stock Inspector Grade-II "by transfer". In the absence of such qualified persons, a pass in S.S.L.C. or equivalent is the qualification. By an amendment, prescription of S.S.L.C. was taken away. While matters stood so, P.S.C. issued notification in the extra-ordinary gazette dated 27.3.2008 calling for applications for consideration for appointments, including "by transfer". The last date fixed for the application was 30.4.2008. The petitioners, who admittedly did not possess the qualification of V.H.S.E. in Live Stock Management, applied. Their applications were rejected by the P.S.C. They came to this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction. They stated that the question whether S.S.L.C. or equivalent should be re-introduced into the Rules, is a matter pending consideration with the Government. At the stage of admission, this Court exercised discretion and permitted them to participate in the test. That order categorically says that, in the normal course, such an interlocutory order would not have been issued. The learned single Judge reasoned to say that the pendency of the recommendation of the Director of Animal Husbandry for re-introduction of S.S.L.C. as a qualification motivated that interlocutory order. Thereafter, that Writ Petition stood transferred to Kerala Administrative Tribunal on its constitution. In the meanwhile, the Government came out with an amendment introducing S.S.L.C. retrospectively with effect from 27.03.2008, i.e., the date of the P.S.C. notification. At the final hearing, before the Tribunal, the P.S.C. took the stand that it would be impermissible to declare the results of the petitioners, who took the competitive examination on the basis of the interim order in the Writ Petition; because, they were persons who took a chance and applied and were found to be unqualified. It is not in dispute that they would continue to be unqualified but for the retrospective amendment re-introducing S.S.L.C. as a qualification with effect from 27.03.2008. When a notification is issued by the P.S.C. prescribing qualifications in terms of the Recruitment Rules that stood as on the date of the notification, that would attract aspirants for the posts. Therefore, if S.S.L.C. was a qualification notified as the alternate qualification in the notification on 27.03.2008, there would have been a larger spectrum, market or zone, of competitors. We are not going by the numbers, but we are going by the principles that we can easily see that at least a group would have been excluded by truthfully keeping themselves away from applying, rather than taking a chance of making an application on the admitted situation of absence of qualification. Therefore, though the retrospective amendment to the Recruitment Rules would, technically, relate back to 27.03.2008, we can clearly envisage that there will be persons in the government service who would stand resultantly deprived of their opportunity. That cannot be ignored. We should also remember that the feeder category for 'by transfer' appointment lies spread out to the different departments in Government. Under such circumstances, the learned standing counsel for P.S.C. is also justified in making reference to District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 3 SCC 655) wherein the Apex Court has categorically stated that when the advertisement mentions a particular qualification, that has necessarily to be treated as governing the persons aspiring and within the field of choice. We, therefore, do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Original Petition fails. In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed in limine.