HABSA BEEVI Vs. SECRETARY, KPSC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent is a public sector undertaking owned by the Kerala State Government.The Public Service Commission has issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment as Junior Assistants in that Company.The qualifications necessary were graduation from a recognised University and knowledge of typewriting.Petitioner applied pursuant to that notification.In addition to being a graduate,she had undergone a course in typewriting in a commercial institute in Alleppey.In Ext.P2 letter,the Public Service Commission required the petitioner to state whether she had passed any examination in typewriting.She was required to produce certificates if she had passed any typewriting examination. - Petitioner sent Ext.P3 in reply thereto enclosing Ext.P3(a)certificate issued by the Principal of the private commercial institute in which she was a student.One of the vacancies of Junior Assistants which was notified in Ext.P1 was reserved to be filled up by a candidate belonging to Mulsim community.Petitioner discovered that the 3rd respondent was appointed in that vacancy.She filed this Original Petition on a complaint that her application was wrongly rejected in spite of her eligibility as per Ext.P1 notification.She therefore,seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the selection of the 3rd respondent for appointment in the 2nd respondent Company pursuant to Ext.P1 notification.

(2.) PETITIONER submits that her application was not considered only due to the fact that she had not passed any examination in typewriting and that is evident from Ext.P2 communication.Counsel for the petitioner submits that a pass in typewriting examination not having been prescribed as one of the essential qualifications,the Public Service Commission acted arbitrarily and illegally in eliminating her.She also submits that the Public Service Commission had no power to add to the qualification necessary for eligibility as specified in the notification.

(3.) I had occasion to consider the same controversy in O.P.7927 of 1988.I held in that judgment that the proviso to Rule 5(2)of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules of Procedure ') enabled the Commission to: " ;.....rest/ret the number of candidates to be called for oral test(interview)on the basis of any one or more of the following criteria: (a)higher qualification (b)higher marks (c)age " ;.. The distinction between eligibility and zone of consideration was emphasised in S.B.Mathur v.Chief Justice,Delhi High Court(AIR 1988 SC 2073 ).The Supreme Court held that if the zone of consideration is limited by the competent authority in a manner not inconsistent with the Rules or in a manner which is not arbitrary or capricious or mala fide,the validity of the decision to limit the zone of consideration cannot be successfully called in question.That principle should apply to this case as well.In State of U.P.v.Rafiquiddin(AIR 1988 SC 162 ),the Supreme Court held that it was within the competence of the Public Service Commission to prescribe minimum marks in the viva voce test and it was not necessary nor possible to give notice to the candidates about the minimum marks which the Commission may determine for the purpose of eliminating unsuitable candidates.Specification of a qualification higher than that prescribed for a particular post was the subject matter of consideration in Pratapan v.Registrar,High Court of Kerala(1984 KLT 625 ).A Division Bench of this Court held that: " ;...... What the 1st respondent did was not to modify or re -write the statutory rules but only to adopt a course of narrowing the field of choice by eliminating third class graduates from scrutiny to minimise the difficulties of screening and to secure the better level of talent for the High Court service.We do not find it possible to strike down Ext.P as illegal or unauthorised."