The court affirmed that appointments made based on qualifications not met by the application deadline are illegal, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to recruitment notifications and reservation policies.

JUDGMENT

[ WA 2383/2018 ,WA.2343/2018 ,WA.2388/2018 ]

C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J.

These appeals arise from a common judgment dated 22.10.2018 in WP(C) Nos.25910/2016 and 9771/2018. Writ Appeal Nos.2343/2018 and 2383/2018 are arising from the judgment in WP(C) No.9771/2018 and Writ Appeal No.2388/2018 is arising from the judgment in WP(C) No.25910/2016. To be precise Writ Appeal No.2343/2018 is filed by the Kerala State Science & Technology Museum viz., the 2^nd respondent in WP(C) No.9771/2018 and the other appeals are filed by the 3^rd respondent in WP(C)No.2510/2016 and WP(C)No.9771/2018 viz., Smt.Akhila V.J Kumar. The above mentioned writ petitions are virtually filed challenging the appointment of the above mentioned Smt.Akhila V.J Kumar. The core contention of the petitioners is that Smt.Akhila was not qualified for appointment to the post of L.D Clerk as she was not possessing the requisite qualification on 15.07.2014, the last date of receipt of application mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 27.05.2014, inviting applications for appointment to various posts including Lower Division Clerk. The following qualification were prescribed for the post of LD clerk:

1.B.com or B.Sc Maths

2.K.G.T.E Typewriting English (Higher)

3.Two years experience in clerical job/office accounts in Government/quasi Government Firms or institutions.

2. After culmination of the selection process consisting of written test and interview the official respondents in the Writ petitions published Ext.P4 ranked list. The 3^rd respondent/the appellant in Writ appeals No.2388/2018 and 2383/2018, the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 25910/2016 and 9771/2018 were Serial Nos.2,3 and 4 respectively in Ext.P4 ranked list. The 3^rd rank holder Smt.Arathi P.S filed WP(C) No.25910/2016 and the 4^th rank holder filed WP(C) No.9771/2018. As noticed herein-before their precise contention was that the 3^rd respondent Smt.Akhila V.J Kumar was not possessing the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of L.D Clerk as on the last date of receipt of application. Since there is a doubt regarding the date of publication of the result of the 3^rd respondent Smt.Akhila V.J Kumar, the Commissioner of Examinations, Pareekshabhavan, Poojapura, was impleaded as additional 5^th respondent and he was directed to file an affidavit with respect to the date of examination in which the 3^rd respondent appeared and the date of publication of its result. Pursuant to the direction the additional 5^th respondent in the said writ petition filed an affidavit on 15.10.2018. The relevant recital in the affidavit filed by the 5^th respondent has been extracted by learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of the judgment. Going by the statement it is evident that the result of the examination in which the 3^rd respondent Smt.Akhila V.J Kumar, appeared and passed was published only on 28.09.2014. Ext.P1 notification would undoubtedly show that the last date fixed for receipt of application was 15.07.2014. Taking note of those indisputable facts, the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that, the 3^rd respondent Smt.Akhila V.J Kumar was not qualified on the last date of receipt of application and therefore she was erroneously included in the Ext.P4 Rank list. Consequently, the learned single Judge declared the selection and appointment of the 3^rd respondent Smt.Akhila V.J Kumar, who was not qualified on the last date of receipt of application as illegal. As a necessary sequel further direction was issued on the following lines:- “It is pointed that Smt.Arathi P.S who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.25910/2016 has already got another appointment. The petitione