The judgment established that a higher qualification cannot be considered as a substitute for the minimum qualification prescribed, and appointments made in disregard to the specified qualification amount to a fraud on the public.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

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."

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. The Public Service Commission filed a counter affidavit and submitted that petitioner does not possess the prescribed qualification. The prescribed qualification was "graduation from any recognised University with Sanskrit as the main subject and LT/BT/B.Ed." Petitioner did not possess graduation from any recognised University with Sanskrit as the main subject. But she is having only post-graduate degree in Sanskrit General. This according to Public Service Commission is not the prescribed qualification.

4. Counsel for the petitioner brought to my knowledge a judgment of this Court in W.A. No..213 of 1997 and submitted that in identical situations, this Court has taken the view that a post graduate is qualified to apply in pursuance of a notification where recognised degree from a University is the requisite qualification. I have gone through the said judgment. I am of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant in the Kerala Financial Corporation was 'a recognised degree from a University either in economics or commerce'. This was the Malayalam version given in the gazette notification. The English version stated 'a Bachelors degree in economics or commerce of a recognised University'. In that case, applicant was having a Degree in Maths (B.Sc.) and post-graduation in Economics (MA). He happened to see the gazette notification in Malayalam language and applied for the same. The Division Bench took the view that he notification would only show that the qualification prescribed is only University degree either in Economics or Commerce, especially when one goes through the malayalam version. There is nothing to indicate that it should be a Bachelors degree, t is under the said circumstances that this Court directed the Public Service Commission to entertain that application.

5. 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 poss