1. Petitioners have applied for the post of Operator in Kerala Water Authority in terms with Ext.P1 notification published in the gazette on 24/04/2006. The qualification prescribed was pass in S.S.L.C examination or equivalent qualification and National Trade Certificate (National Trade Certificate) in Mechanical (Motor Vehicle/Electrician). According to the petitioners, they have the required qualification. The Special Rules published as per G.O.P (No.) 86/79/LA – SWD dated 25/09/1979 also provides for the same qualification for the post of Operator. But the complaint of the petitioner is that while publishing Ext.P4 probability list of candidates on 29/10/2008 the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) added a note indicating that candidates with certain other qualifications are also considered which are as follows:

“Note:-1. Candidates with the following qualifications are also considered. a. National Trade Certificate Certificate in

(i) Diesel Mechanic

(ii) Industrial Electrician

b. Diploma in

(i) Electrical Engineering

(ii) Mechanical Engineering

(iii) Automobile Engineering

c. B.Tech. Degree in

(i) Electrical Engineering

(ii) Mechanical Engineering

(iii) Electrical and Electronics Engineering.

d. National Apprenticeship Certificate in the trade of Electrician under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 (Three Year course)”

2. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that when there is a notified qualification for the post of Operator in terms of Ext.P1, it is not open for KPSC to include Diploma holders or Degree holders while preparing the probability list which, according to the petitioners, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. According to them, once a public announcement has been made notifying selection to a post as per the Special Rules, subsequently a higher qualification cannot be prescribed which is clear from various judgments of the High Court as well as Supreme Court.

3. The petitioners also have a case that the higher degree which is stated in the Note is not an equivalent qualification to the National Trade Certificate course which the petitioners had undertaken.

4. Pursuant to Ext.P4, by an interim order dated 14/01/2011, the learned Judge of this Court had observed that in order to consider whether Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Mechanical Engineering/Automobile Engineering and Degree in Electrical Engineering/Mechanical Engineering and Electrical and Electronics Engineering are qualifications which pre-suppose acquisition of the qualification of National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle/Electrician) as stipulated in Rule 10(a) (ii) of Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958), it was necessary to get expert opinion on this aspect from a competent authority under the Government of Kerala. Accordingly, the Director of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram was suo motu impleaded as a respondent and there was a further direction that an affidavit of the Director of Technical Education should be filed within a period of three weeks.

5. However, learned counsel for the petitioners did not urge the said contention at the time of hearing and confined his argument on the main legal question as to whether a higher qualification can be prescribed without notifying the same either in the notification or in the Special Rules. Hence the said issue alone is being considered in this writ petition.

6. It seems that pursuant to Ext.P4, a rank list was published on 26/11/2009 in which also, according to the petitioners, persons who had higher qualifications than what was prescribed under Ext.P1 notification, were included. Ext.P13 is the said rank list. In the light of the aforesaid statement of facts, the petitioners seek to quash Exts.P4 and P13 to the extent it includes candidates having a higher qualification as stated in the note to the probability list and for a declaration that such persons are not eligible to be included in Exts.P4 and P13 rank list.

7. The learned counsel for th