The court emphasized the reasonableness of conditions and the authority's discretion to relax stipulations, ultimately upholding the appointment of the 4th respondent as just and reasonable.

1. Kerala Agro Industries Corporation 2nd respondent in the writ petition invited on 6-5-1981 applications for the appointment for the post of Production Assistants. The qualifications and experience for the post were: B. Sc. (Food Technology) or B. Sc. Degree with Certificate in Fruit and Vegetable processing; 2 years' experience in Fruit and Vegetable processing preferably in a cannery processing pineapple products. The applications were to reach the Corporation within 15 days of the publication of the notification. There were many applicants. The petitioner was one among them. So too was the 4th respondent. Interview was fixed on 17-9-1981. The candidates were to produce at the time of the interview original records with proof of age, qualification, experience etc Fifteen candidates were so interviewed. The rank list prepared was to enure for a period of two years, that is up to 17-9-1983. Ranks Nos.1 and 2 went to one Baby Sarojam and Krishnakumar. The 4th respondent got the 3rd rank and the petitioner, the 4th.

2. Krishnakumar got appointment initially as Chemist. Later under Ext. R4-A dated 19-12-1981 he was permitted to go over to the post of Production Assistant. It was thereafter that under Ext. R4-B dated 2-7-1982 that the 4th respondent was appointed as Production Assistant. The penultimate paragraph of the appointment order stated:

"Please bring with you the documents in original to prove date of birth, qualifications, experience, community etc., for verification at the time of your joining duty".

Pursuant to the appointment order, he joined duty.

3. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent was not entitled to be appointed to the post. One reason for saying so was the allegation of the petitioner that the 4th respondent was not possessed of the prescribed experience. And the second one was his omission to produce certificate of experience at the time of the interview. It is claimed that the petitioner "made personal representations on this matter to the 2nd respondent and to the then Minister for Agriculture." The allegation continues: "Both of them promised to look into the matter and do the needful immediately. But nothing has been done till now."

4. The petitioner felt that it was getting unduly delayed. The validity period of the list was to expire on 17-9-1983. Further wait was felt to be fatal. The writ petition was thereupon filed before this court on 7-9-1983. The pointed contentions are covered by Ground B. They are linked with an allegation about the infraction of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was contended that the 4th respondent could not be retained in the services of the Agro Industries Corporation and that the petitioner should be appointed as Production Assistant.

5. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Corporation and also on behalf of the appointee-the 4th respondent.

6. In the light of the documents produced and averments contained in the counter-affidavits, it cannot be doubted that the 4th respondent is duly qualified. The possession of educational qualification by the 4th respondent is evident from Ext. R4-C. Exts. R4-D and R4-E establish the possession of the requisite experience also. The 2nd respondent-Corporation was convinced about it. In Para.7 of the counter-affidavit it was stated that as on the date of the application, namely, 13 51981, the 4th respondent had acquired the necessary experience, and to be precise, a two years 3 months and 22 days experience, in Fruit and Vegetable Processing. This was taken into consideration by the committee; and since be had fared better than the petitioner, he was ranked above the petitioner.

7. The serious and fundamental challenge on the lack of qualification, therefore, fails. As a matter of fact, confronted with these materials, counsel for the petitioner did not pursue the point about the 4th respondent lacking either in qualification or in experience.

8. A tenacious argument was, however, advanced about the omis