SHAILA BEEGUM Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated September 26, 1990 a learned Judge referred the Original Petition for being heard by a Division Bench since important questions were involved, on which there was no direct authority. Subsequently by another order dated November 21, 1995 a Division Bench re ferred the case to a Full Bench on the ground of general importance of the questions that arose for consideration.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Information Officer in the Public Relations Department as per notification issued in Part I B dated July 26, 1983 of the Kerala Gazette. The qualifications prescribed for the post were:

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent the basic facts had not been disputed. It was submitted that about 346 applications were received, of which 67 alone were defect-free. The selection was finalised after a written test followed by an interview. In the main list, 51 candidates and one candidate of the Muslim community in the supplementary list were published on January 8, 1985 and they were called for interview. In the rank list settled there were 50 candidates, 49 in the main list and one in the supplementary list, which were brought into force w. e. f. April 25, 1985. Only 15 vacancies had been notified for the post and five more vacancies were subsequently reported and as such 20 candidates were advised for appointment from the rank list prepared as per the rules of reservation and rotation. Petitioner's experience and the period she spent for study to acquire the essential qualification overlapped and therefore, her application wavs defective and she was informed accordingly. But while scrutinising the applications, the acceptability of certain certificates of experience submitted by some of the candidates became doubtful and therefore, the Commission by order dated June 12, 1984 directed a re-scrutiny. From the documents she produced it was seen that she appeared for the B. A. Degree examination in April 1981, while her experience was for the period from January 1, 1981 to September 5, 1983. According to Clause 19 of the General Conditions of the notification, the candidate will be deemed to have passed the ex animation only with effect from the date of official publication of the results by the University. The experience required for a post before acquisition of the basic academic qualification could not be taken as qualifying experience for 'obvious reasons'. Hence, her application as also of some others were rejected as detective. However, her application was provisionally admitted pending information regarding the date of publication of the result and it was later as-certained that the result was published on September 7, 1981. Accordingly her experience from September 8, 1981 to September 5, 1983 alone could be taken into account, which was less that two years. A defect-curing memo" was issued to her on August 10, 1984. By then the written test was fixed to be held on September 15, 1984. She was admitted to the test provisionally. No reply was received from her to the "defect curing memo" within the prescribed period of 15 days. Even then, provisionally, admission ticket was issued to her to attend the written test and it was decided on September 12, 1984 to direct her to furnish explanation to the defect-curing memo at the time of interview. She was also admitted for interview and her name was included provisionally. She was ranked No. 1 in the provisional list for Muslims. As stated already, it was ultimately found that she had no experience for the required period after acquiring the basic educational qualification. Her name was therefore, proposed to be deleted from the rank list. Notice was also given to show cause, to which she sent a reply on October 18, 1985, which was unsatisfactory. Eventually by order dated July 3, 1986 her name was deleted and the order was communicated to her. The order is legal and valid. The list had already expired on April 24, 1988. Several candidates from the list were advised and appointed, who are not parties to the Original Petition which is devoid of merit.