SUJATHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Public Service Commission issued a gazette notification dated 27. 7. 1993 inviting applications for selection to the post of special Officer (Sanskrit) in the Education Department. THE qualification prescribed for the post was: "graduation from any recognised University with sanskrit as the main subject and LT/bt/ BEA" 2. Petitioner was an applicant to the post. He was having the following qualifications: 1. Sanskrit General-M. A.-Firstaass 2. Sanskrit Special-M. A. Sahitya-Second Class 3. B. Ed. "

(2.) PETITIONER was called for the written test, and later he was included in a supplementary short list PETITIONER was awaiting interview card. He was then served with a show cause notice dated 9. 10. 1997 informing her that Public Service Commission decided to tentatively reject her application for the said post, and also to delete her name from the short list, since she did not possess B. A. degree in Sanskrit as the main subject. In the meantime, the Public Service Commission notified the date of interview. PETITIONER approached this Court and this Court granted permission to the petitioner to appear for the interview. PETITIONER seeks a declaration that she is fully qualified to be appointed as Special Officer (Sanskrit) in the Education department.

(3.) AS far as this case is concerned, it is specifically stated in the notification that le qualification was graduation from any recognised University with Sanskrit as the lain subject. Graduation can only mean, basic graduate degree and not a post-graduate degree. Graduation from a recognised University and post-graduation from a cognized University have got different meaning. That is how a prudent man would understand the notification. Public Service Commission published a notification stating at essential qualification for the post is graduation from a recognised University with inskrit as the main subject. Only those applicants who have got graduation in that subject would normally apply and not a post-graduate. No other reasoning can be adopted. It is not disputed that petitioner does not possess graduation with Sanskrit as the main subject from any recognised University. After issuing the notification inviting applications, and if applicants having post-graduation are selected, that would be a fraud committed on the public, since many of the post-graduates would not have applied for the post. This court deprecated the practice of searching for equivalent and better qualification, after issuing the notification. This Court in cases in Shoba menon v. Public Service Commission, 1994 (1) KLT 986; Jayanthi v. Public service Commission, 1996 (2) KLT SN. 72; Latha v. Public Service Commission, 1997 (2) KLT 624; and Sadanandan v. State Bank of Travancore, ILR (1996) 3 Ker 780; and the Supreme Court in Karnataka Public Service Commission v. N. C. Hugar, (1981) 1 SLR 469 & District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram s. W. R. S. Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 have laid down various propositions, which have been considered by the Division Bench in W. A. No. 213 of 1996, and explained as follows: 1. If the notification itself does not indicate that equal qualification would also be considered, there is no power on the Public service Commission to entertain the application stated to be equivalent to the one notified. 1 A Higher qualification possessed by an applicant will not be an adequate substitute for the minimum qualification prescribed by the public Service Commission. 3. When a particular qualification is prescribed mere is no justification in saying that an over qualified candidate is desirable or required. 4. If a candidate does not possess the qualification that is prescribed by the rules, the question as to whether some other qualification possessed by him is higher or not does not arise for consideration, and 5. When advertisement mentions particular qualification and if appointments are made in disregard to the same, it amounts to a fraud on public. Applying the above mentioned principles, I am of the view that the Public Service Commission is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner, and consequently deleting her name from the short list. Original Petition therefore, lacks merits and the same is dismissed. . .