SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Ker) 280

Judges : K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Latha - Appellant
Versus
Public Service Commission - Respondent
Case No : O.P.Nos.14508 & 10395/97
Decided On : 09/09/1997
Advocates Appeared :
C.P. Sudhakara Prasad, Elvin Peter P.J. & PN. Santhosh For Petitioners O.V. Radhakrishnan & Government Pleader (Alexander Thomas) For Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a notification specifies clear and specific qualifications, the Public Service Commission is not justified in entertaining applicants with equivalent qualifications.

Headnote:

Public Service Commission - Qualifications for Government Presses - The court held that the Public Service Commission was justified in rejecting the applications of petitioners who did not possess the specific qualifications prescribed in the notification. The court emphasized that when the notification specifies clear and specific qualifications, there is no power for the Commission to entertain applicants with equivalent qualifications.

Fact of the Case:

The Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting applications for the post of Binder Gr. II in the Government Presses, with specific qualifications required. The petitioners, who possessed a Diploma in Printing Technology but did not have the prescribed KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Lower), had their applications rejected by the Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were not justified in contending that the Commission should have entertained their applications, as the qualifications were clear and specific in the notification. The court dismissed the Original Petitions, stating that the petitioners lacked merits.

Issues: The issue revolved around whether the Public Service Commission was justified in rejecting the applications of the petitioners who did not possess the specific qualifications prescribed in the notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when the notification specifies clear and specific qualifications, there is no power for the Commission to entertain applicants with equivalent qualifications. The court referred to previous cases to support its decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Original Petitions, stating that the petitioners lacked merits.

Judgment :-

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Public Service Commission issued a notification in the Gazette dated 13th August 1996 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Binder Gr. II in the Government Presses of the Printing Department. Qualifications prescribed for the post were as follows: (1) Must have completed the SSLC course or its equivalent and (2) must have passed KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Lower). On the basis of the above mentioned notification several persons applied including the petitioners herein. Petitioners possess SSLC and Diploma in Printing Technology. They have not passed KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Lower).

2. Petitioners applications were rejected by the Public Service Commission on the ground that they do not possess KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Lower) which are the essential qualification prescribed in the notification. According to the petitioner since they have passed Diploma in Printing Technology they should be treated as qualified for applying for the post of Binder Grade II. It is their case Diploma course is three year course and all the subjects for KGTE and MGTE in Book Binding (Lower) have been included in the three year Diploma Course. Relying on the Special Rules for the Kerala Government Presses Subordinate Service petitioners submitted that for promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman (Binding) the qualifications prescribed are: (i) pass in SSLC or equivalent qualification and (ii) pass in KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Higher). It is further provided in the Special Rules in the absence of qualified hands for promotion, direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Foreman (Binding) could be resorted to for which the qualification prescribed are pass in SSLC or equivalent qualification and Diploma in Printing Technology of a recognised institution. According to them, the Diploma in Printing Technology is also considered as equivalent qualification for KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Lower). It is also stated for appointment to the post of Junior Foreman (Binding) which is a promotion post of Assistant Foreman (Binding) a ratio of 1:1 is prescribed for Diploma Holders and those who have passed KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Higher): Composing (Lower) and Machine Work (Lower). It is their case Diploma in Printing Technology is considered as better qualification than KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Lower) and (Higher) for discharging the duties of Binder Gr. II, Binder Grade I, Asst. Foreman (Binding), Junior Foreman (Binding) etc.

3. The qualification under Special Rules for the Kerala Government Presses subordinate Service prescribed for the post of Binder Gr. II is the one notified in Ext. P1 notification. Special Rules as well as the notification issued by the PSC prescribe applicants must have completed SSLC Course or its equivalent and must have passed KGTE or MGTE in Book Binding (Lower). Qualification prescribed in the Special Rules as well as the notification is specific.

4. Admittedly going by the Special Rules as well as going by Ext. P1 notification petitioners do not possess the prescribed qualification. They are having diploma in Printing Technology which is not prescribed qualification either in the Special Rules or in the Gazette Notification. R.13 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules prescribed that no person shall be eligible to appoint to any service unless he possessed such special qualification as has been prescribed in that behalf in the Special Rules or possessed such other qualification as may be considered to be equivalent to the said special qualification by the Commission in cases where the appointment has to be made in consultation with the Commission.

5. While the Special Rules and the Notification specified the qualification the Commission and the Government is not justified in searching for equivalent qualification later stage which would only lead to chaos and confusion in the matter of selection. When Special Rules are framed and notifications are issued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top