The main legal point established in the judgment is that for temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, the qualification regarding age is relevant, and the upper age limit prescribed by the Special Rules must be adhered to. The appointing authority should consider candidates possessing the qualifications prescribed by the Special Rules for temporary appointment.

1. When C.M.P. No. 917/91 came up for orders, counsel appearing on either side prayed for disposal of the original petition itself. Accordingly I heard them at length. I am disposing of the original petition.

2. A post of Lecturer in German lay vacant in the College for Women, Thiruvananthapuram. Since there was delay in making regular appointment to the post, the vacancy was reported to the Professional and Technical Employment Exchange, Thiruvananthapuram. That Exchange sponsored petitioner, 5th respondent and Smt. N. K. Sarala. An interview was held of all these three candidates on 21890 for selecting one. 5th respondent who was aged more than 49 years on the date of interview, was selected and appointed as per Ext.R3(a) order dated 22890 for a period of 3 months or till a regular hand advised by the P.S.C. is appointed whichever is earlier. This appointment is under challenge.

3. Eventhough various grounds have been raised in the O.P. including malafides, I do not think it necessary to examine all those contentions except the one based on R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the General Rules.

4. Learned counsel representing the 5th respondent raised a contention that for appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, qualification regarding age is not to be taken into consideration. The only aspect to be looked in to is whether the candidate possesses the qualification required for the post. This qualification, according to counsel, can take in only educational qualifications and not qualification regarding age. He went on to contend that anyone who possesses the educational qualification below the age of 50 is entitled to be temporarily appointed under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. In other words, for temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, the age limit prescribed by the Special Rules has no relevance.

5. R.6 of the Special Rules relating to Kerala Collegiate Education Service (published as G.O.(P) No. 357/PD dated 281067 in Kerala Gazette dated 141167) provides the qualifications for the post. Clause (a) of R.6 relates to the "qualification regarding age" and Clause (b) relates to "other qualifications". Under Clause (a) the maximum age limit fixed for the post of Lecturer in the Arts College is 28. That age limit was raised by three years as per Public Services (Raising of upper age limit for appointment) R.1972. Later by Public Services (Raising of upper age limit for appointment) R.1978 it was further raised by five years. Thus the upper age limit for appointment to the post of Lecturer after 1978 is 36 years. But in the case of persons having degrees like Ph.D., D. Phil, D.Sc. and D.Litt., the upper age limit shall be enhanced by three years. So the upper age limit as per the Special Rules relating to Collegiate Education Service is 36 years and in the case of candidates having Research degrees, it is 39 years.

6. As per R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, when it is necessary in the public interest to fill immediately a vacancy and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with the General Rule and the Special Rules, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the Rules temporarily. Does it mean that owing to emergency an appointment can be made decors all other provisions in the General Rules and the Special Rules invoking R.9(a)(i)? According to learned counsel representing the petitioner, even for making temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, qualifications prescribed under Special Rules will have to be adhered to. The stand taken by the learned counsel representing the 5th respondent is that in making temporary appointments under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, educational qualification prescribed for the post need alone be looked into. In other words, according to counsel, for effecting temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, qualific