The main legal point established in the judgment is that the experience qualification for a post should not necessarily have been obtained after acquiring the basic educational qualification, and the terms of the notification should not be misconstrued or misapplied by the authorities.

B.M. Thulasidas, J.

By order dated 26.10.1990 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 dt. 21.11.1995 a Division Bench referred the case to a Full Bench on the ground 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 26.7.1983 of the Kerala Gazette. The qualifications prescribed for the post were:

a) B.A., B.Sc. or B.Com. Degree of any recognised University

b) Two years experience in a Government Publicity Organisation or Publicity Department of a Private Organisation or firm or the Editional Section of a daily news paper or news agency, and

c) Ability to prepare press bulletin and press publicity handouts.

She passed the B.A. Degree examination on 7.9.1981 from the Kerala University. She had experience as a Sub Editor in Jayaramam News Weekly, Kaniyapuram for two years from 1.1.1981 to 5.9.1983. She was therefore, qualified for the post and submitted her application on 5.9.198 3. The first respondent rejected her application on the ground that she had not the prescribed qualifications and intimated her about it as per Ext. P1 dt.16.2.1984. She was also told that no further correspondence will be entertained in the matter. But subsequently, the matter was re-considered suo moto and she was called for interview as per Ext. P2. On 7.10.1985 she received Ext. P3 from the first respondent informing that her name was proposed to be deleted from the rank list on the ground that she had not acquired experience qualification for two years at the time of the application for "according to the Gazette Notification, experience qualification should be one acquired after obtaining the basic qualification, viz B. A." She was asked to show cause within 15 days of receipt of the communication. To this, she sent Ext. P4 objecting the proposal to delete her name from the rank list, followed by another detailed reply, copy of which is Ext. P5. But without considering her case correctly, the first respondent was stated to have illegally and arbitrarily passed Ext. P6, by which her name was deleted from the supplementary list for Muslims, finalised on 25.4.1985. She has prayed:

A. To call for the records of the case leading to the issue of Ext. P6 communication dated 3.2.1986 and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

and/or

to declare that the action of the 1st respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner from the supplementary rank list dt. 25.4.1985 for the post of Assistant Information Officer in the Public-Relations Department is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction;

B. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to act in accordance with law and to restore the name of the petitioner in the rank list dated 25-4-1985 and to advise the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Information Officer in accordance with the Rules regarding appointment:

C. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to advise and appoint the petitioner in the next arising vacancy in the post of Assistant Information officer in the Public Relations Department to give her seniority and other benefits on the basis of the seniority of the petitioner in the rank list dated 25-4-1985;

D. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction forbearing the respondents from advising and appointing any of the persons from the rank list whose rank is below the petitioner; and

E. To pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the ca