IMPORTANT POINTS
Non-mentioning of applicability of Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II of the KS&SSR, in the notification, did not take away the applicability of that Rule. Statutory Rules such as Rule 10(a)(ii) apply to every selection even if its applicability is not declared specifically in the Notification. However in order to ensure that there is equality of opportunity and to avoid any kind of arbitrariness, the Public Service Commission would do well either to issue General Guidelines as to which qualification other than the prescribed one would be determined for acceptance under the second part of Rule 10(a)(ii).

JUDGMENT :

Gopinath, J.

These original petitions have been filed by challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2473/2016. OP (KAT) No.319/2018 is filed by the 6th respondent in OA No.2473/2016 while OP (KAT) 466/2019 has been filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the 1st respondent in OA No.2473/2016.

2. The facts fall within a very narrow compass and may be briefly noticed. The Kerala Public Service Commission issued a notification for filling up of vacancies of Tradesman in various trades including that of Welding in the Technical Education Department. The qualification prescribed for the post of Tradesman is 'a pass in Technical High School Leaving Certificate Examination or (I) pass in Secondary School Leaving Certificate or equivalent (ii) National Trade Certificate in the appropriate trade/pass in Vocational Higher Secondary Certificate Course in the appropriate trade/pass in Kerala Government Certificate in Engineering Examination in the appropriate trade.

3. The applicant before the Tribunal (who is the 1st respondent in both these original petitions) was qualified in terms of the notification. On publication of the ranked list, the applicant/1st respondent noticed that persons holding Graduate Degree in Engineering have been included in the list. Therefore he approached the Tribunal. It was specifically pointed out that the 6th respondent before the Tribunal who holds a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering is included in the main list as a Viswakarma candidate while the applicant/1st respondent was included in the supplementary list for Viswakarma as rank No.1. The 6th respondent before the Tribunal has been advised and appointed and if he is excluded the applicant/1st respondent herein will be eligible for advice and appointment is the case projected before the Tribunal. On a consideration of the matter and after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jyothi K.K and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15SCC596 and the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Suma v. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2011(1) KLT 1 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the consideration and inclusion of Engineering Graduates in the ranked list was illegal. The Tribunal, therefore, directed that the ranked list shall be recast by excluding the candidates possessing Graduate qualification and also directed cancellation of advice memos issued to the ineligible candidates. It was also directed that after recast of the rank list, advice memos shall be issued to eligible persons after following the turn and reservation principles. The petitioners in these cases (The Public Service Commission and the 6th respondent in the O.A) contend, in the main, that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and ignored the binding precedent in Jyothi (supra).

4. We have heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in OP (KAT) 319/2018 and Sri. E.N. Vishnu Namboodiri, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/applicant before the Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and the learned counsel for the petitioner in OP (KAT) No.319/2018 would contend that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down in Jyothi and that the Tribunal wrongly applied the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Suma v. KPSC (supra). It is submitted that the failure to mention that the provisions of Rule 10 (a) (ii) of the KS & SSR were applicable, in the notification, did not mean that the said Rule was inapplicable. It is also submitted that following the issuance of circular 27/2014, on 10-08-2014 by the PSC, all notifications invariably state that the said Rule would be applicable to the selection and that this was not on account of the fact that the non-mentioning of the Rule would render the Rule