The court affirmed that differential qualification criteria established by the government do not constitute discrimination, provided they serve a legitimate state objective.

JUDGMENT

By far, imputations and allegations of “discrimination” is the cornerstone of Writ Petitions filed before this court – or before any constitutional Court – and the ingenuity exhibited in some of them, to bring the cause within the forensic purlieus of the Constitutional Scheme, is sometimes amusing – as in this case.

2. The petitioner is an aspirant to the post of Branch Manager to a Co-operative Society, the selection to which is under the aegis of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC); but concedes that he does not have 50% aggregate marks in the subject “B.Com. with Co-operation”, as is statutorily prescribed. He thus impugns Rule 186(1)(ia)(i) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (“KCS Rules” for short), asserting that the same is arbitrary, if not capricious, because it is only in the case of “B.Com. with Co-operation” that an aggregate of 50% marks is stipulated; while in the case of “B.Sc. (Co-operation and Banking)”, no such prescription has been made.

3. The petitioner asserts that this is discriminatory and thus pleads that the afore Rule be set aside.

4. I have heard Sri.M.M.Monaye – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the PSC and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

5. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, in response, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim a right to be considered for appointment under the notification in question, even if this Court is to find in his favour, because, at the time when it was issued, the provisions of 186(1)(ia)(i), as it presently remains, was in force. He argued that, therefore, when the petitioner concedes that he does not have aggregate marks of 50% in “B.Com. with Co-

operation”, he cannot even maintain this Writ Petition. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

6. Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the qualifications prescribed in Rule 186(1)(ia)(i) of the “KCS Rules”, have been fixed by the Government under its subordinate legislative powers; and, therefore, that the petitioner cannot impugn it merely because the stipulations with respect to the various qualifications therein are different. She pointed out that, as far as “B.Sc. in Co-operation and Banking” is concerned, it is a four year course; while “B.Com. with Co-operation” is only a three year one. She added that, in any event, the petitioner would not obtain any benefit in this Writ Petition even if it is allowed because, at the time when the notification was issued by the PSC, the Rule now available was in effect. She concluded her submissions, pointing out that there is a germane reason why there are different stipulations for different qualifications in the afore Rule, namely, that the qualifications and eligibility for admission to the same are also distinct.

7. When I evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is evident that, in effect, the arguments of Sri.M.M.Monaye – on behalf of the petitioner, is that since there is no requirement in the impugned Rule that a candidate who acquires “B.Sc. (Co- operation and Banking)” must have obtained 50% marks in the aggregate, such a stipulation with respect to persons who have acquired “B.Com. with Co-operation” is illegal. Pertinently, his argument is that, hence, the impugned stipulation with respect to “B.Com. with Co-operation” should be directed to be amended, particularly because, as far as “HDC” is concerned – which is a qualification to be obtained in addition to graduation from a recognized University under the first limb of the Rule –

there is no such stipulation either.

8. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore arguments of Sri.M.M.Monaye because, even assuming that this Court finds it to have any worth, it can only lead to a situation where the Government is called upon to amend the qualification with respect to “B.Sc. in Co-operation and Banking”, to introduce the requirement of a candidate to have acquired agg