JALAJAMMA P. S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration is identical in this batch of writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE respondent - Commission issued notification dated 27/10/1998 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy) in the Department of Homoeopathy. Qualifications were prescribed in G.O.(MS) 161/84/HG dated 21/06/1984. Selection process was completed and separate districtwise rank lists were published on various dates between April, 2002 and January 2003. The petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 13707, 13054, 12909 and 20111 of 2006 have been included in the rank list published for appointment in Pathanamthitta District. The petitioners in WP (C) No. 21238 and 19494 of 2006 have been included in the rank list for Alappuzha District and the petitioner in WP (C) No. 18251 of 2006 has been included in the rank list for Thrissur District.

(3.) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the dictum laid down in Stalin's case stands overruled by the Full Bench in Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy (supra). That being the unquestionable legal position the petitioners who do not possess the amended qualification are not entitled to be advised for appointment against vacancies arose on and after the amended provisions have come into force. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of certain advices and appointments that had taken place after the pronouncement of the judgment in Stalin's case and before the judgment of the Full Bench in Mohanan's case (supra), the petitioners are entitled to claim that they shall not be denied benefits granted to candidates whose places in the rank list are lower down in that list when compared to that of the petitioners. It is pointed out that the Commission had advised candidates who have no superior claim over the petitioners. The above action of the Commission, it is contended by the petitioners, is patently violative of the doctrine of equality. The Commission ought to have advised the candidates in accordance with the rank position assigned to the respective candidates and applying the rules of communal reservation, contended the petitioners. Instead, the Commission indulged in the illegal act of 'pick and choose' and a hostile discrimination has been practised against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the benefit of the judgment in Stalin's case ought to have been made available to the candidates included in the rank list according to their rank position, whether or not such candidates were parties before this Court in the writ petitions or writ appeals, because once the Court declares the law, the benefit of such declaration shall be made available to similarly situated persons without infringing the doctrine of equality. It was vehemently contended that the action of the Commission in confining the benefit of the judgment in Stalin's case and other connected writ appeals only to those who were parties to those cases is therefore illegal. Counsel for the petitioners further contended that a subsequent declaration of the correct legal position by the Full Bench will not stand in the way of the petitioners claiming equal treatment as was given by the Commission to candidates who were having only inferior rights when compared to that of the petitioners.