SOBHA MENON Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Lecturer in History of Arts and Aesthetics in the Department of Technical Education (College of Fine Arts) pursuant to the Notification Ext. P1 dt.15-10-1991. She approached this court praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the selection of one Ramachandran to the said post ahead of her. The petitioner, for reasons best known to her, did not implead the said Ramachandran as a respondent in this Original Petition. But the said Ramachandran filed C.M.P.12145/1993 for getting himself impleaded as additional respondent No.5 in this Original Petition. That application was allowed by this court. Thus the defect in the Original Petition was cured.

(2.) The qualification prescribed under Ext. P1 for the post is a First Class or Second Class Master's Degree in History of Arts from a recognised University with not less than 35% marks. According to the petitioner she possesses a First Class Master's Degree in M.A. (Fine) Arts History from the Department of Art History and Aesthetics of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda with 69.5% marks. Respondent No.5 who was also an applicant possessed the degree M.A.(Fine) Art Criticism from the same University. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5 did not possess the requisite qualification prescribed by Ext. P1 Notification but was being preferred for the post in question, in view of the all pervasive influence he seems to have exerted. The petitioner had earlier approached this court with O.P.1787 of 1993 praying for a direction to the respondent to strictly follow the conditions laid down in the Notification Ext. P1. By judgment Ext. P2 dated 8-2-1993 this court dismissed the Original Petition recording the submission made on behalf of the Kerala Public Service Commission to the effect that the selection will be made in accordance with law and making it clear that the dismissal of that petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching this court again if it became necessary. According to the petitioner, it has become necessary to approach this court again in view of the illegal selection to the post made by the respondents.

(3.) It is pointed out that the qualification prescribed under Ext. P1 is a Master's Degree in History of Arts. It is seen from Ext. P1 that there is no mention of any other equivalent qualification or alternate qualification. According to the petitioner, the qualification, Masters Degree in History of Arts is available only in the University of Madras and is not available in any other University. According to the first respondent Public Service Commission, none of the applicants to the post advertised under Ext. P1 possessed a Post-Graduate Degree in History of Arts. It was therefore decided to make the selection from among the applicants who possessed equivalent degrees. According to the Public Service Commission, the petitioner possessed the qualification of a postgraduate Degree in Arts, History and respondent No.5 possessed a post-graduate Degree in Art Criticism. According to the first respondent, both the said degrees could be treated as sufficient to meet the requirements of Ext. P1 Notification or as equivalent qualifications and on comparison, it was found that respondent No.5 was better qualified and hence he was selected. The petitioner contends that a post-graduate degree in Art Criticism cannot be treated as equivalent to a post-graduate degree in History of Arts whereas, the degree held by the petitioner in Arts History was identical as a postgraduate degree in History of Arts since the distinction between the two degrees was only a distinction without a difference. According to respondent No.5, the subjects he studied for his post-graduate course would show that the degree held by him is equivalent to a post-graduate degree in History of Arts and that the selection was made by the Public Service Commission only after a due and proper assessment of the merits of the applicants and there are no legal grounds to set aside the selection of respondent No.5 to the post. It is contended that he is better qualified to hold the post of Lecturer in History of Arts and Aesthetics.