ARJUN THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had applied for the post of Herbarium Keeper in the 5th respondent College pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 07.03.2012. The petitioner possessed a B.Sc. Degree in Botany and, at the time of responding to Ext.P1 notification, he had completed the M.Sc. Course in Botany and, was awaiting the result of the examination conducted by the University. It is pointed out that subsequently the petitioner passed the M.Sc. Course in Botany as well. The prescribed qualifications for the post of Herbarium Keeper as discernible from the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes Chapter 45 Part (C) and Statute 44 is as follows:

(2.) IT is apparent that, for considering himself eligible to the post which was sought to be filled by direct recruitment, the petitioner had to be possessed of the minimum qualification of a pass in SSLC with experience in Botany Laboratory. The Selection Committee which met to consider applicants for the post of Herbarium Keeper recommended the petitioner for the said post and accordingly by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner was appointed as Herbarium Keeper with effect from 10.08.2012. Thereafter the 5th respondent College forwarded the papers relating to appointment of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent for its approval. By Ext.P5 communication, which is seen addressed to the 2nd respondent from the 1st respondent, the respondents did not choose to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the reason that he did not have the qualification prescribed in Ext.P6 Government Order dated 17.09.2004. The 5th respondent was also directed to expel the petitioner and appoint a new person in his place. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the 5th respondent informed the petitioner of the decision of the Government vide Ext.P9 letter dated 23.09.2013. On receipt of Ext.P9, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition impugning Ext.P4 Order issued by the 1st respondent, to the extent it directed the nullification of the appointment of the petitioner as Herbarium Keeper.

(3.) THE case of the 2nd respondent essentially is that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification of having sufficient laboratory experience for the post of Herbarium Keeper under the University Statutes. It is further stated that at any rate, the petitioner did not have the qualification prescribed in Ext.P6 Government Order either and hence, on both counts, the petitioner was not qualified for appointment to the said post. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner would point out that he had since acquired even the qualification of a Certificate Course in Herbarium Keeper as mandated under Ext.P6 Government Order and further that a perusal of the syllabi for the B.Sc Botany Course as also the M.Sc. Botany Course under the Mahatma Gandhi University would clearly indicate that he had sufficient experience in the Botany lab as mandated under the University Statute for the post in question.