MUKESH V.R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges the decision of the learned single Judge refusing to interfere with the application of 40% as the cut off marks in the written test for appointment to the category of Assistant Grade II from the low paid staff working in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned standing counsel for the University, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.

(3.) NO statutory rule governing recruitment to the services of the University provides any such reservation or quota rule. The prescription of 5% reserved for the low paid employees is made on the basis of the executive decision of the Government. That decision of the Government is held the field from 1974 and it continues to be so even now; one of the prime objects for its operation being that the candidates should obtain 40% marks in the written examination. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of this Court in Dr. S. Ajayan v. State of Kerala and others, ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 641 (DB) and Ravidas v, Public Service Commission, 2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB). While the Full Bench held that the PSC could not have prescribed cut off marks to shortlist candidates for interview in the absence of such a provision in the Rules or notification, the Division Bench in Dr. S. Ajayan (supra), which was affirmed by the Full Bench, dealt with similar issue relating to recruitment through PSC. We do not have to go to such areas now because, the whole exercise of regulating 5% for the low paid employees is on the basis of the Government Orders which operated from 1974, all those Government Orders carrying the specific prescription of 40% as the cut off marks for the written examination in the case of such candidates. The University has not applied any other yardstick. The mere fact that a cut off date has not been mentioned in the notification issued by the University makes no difference. This is all the more so because, 40% cut off marks are indefeasibly applied to open market candidates as also those aspiring for inclusion in the 5% quota. For these reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge.