ANEESH P.A. v. State of Kerala, Kerala Public Service Commission, Mahatma Gandhi University and Police Chief of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/27TH KARTHIKA, 1935** **OP(KAT).No. 3890 of 2013 (Z) -----------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 3582/2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03.04.2013** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:** **------------------------------------------------** **ANEESH P.A., AGED 28 YEARS S/O.ALIYAR, PAZHAMPILLITHAZHATH HOUSE, PUTHUPADY [PO] KOTHAMANGALAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH** **SMT.R.LEELA** **SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM PIN - 695 001.** **2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O. TRIVANDRUM , PIN - 695 004.** **3. THE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTER, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.** **4. THE POLICE CHIEF OF KERALA,** - **POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001.** - **R3 BY ADV. DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R1 & R4 BY SRI.P.M.JOSEPH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC.** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(KAT).No. 3890 of 2013 (Z)** **-----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF AMENDED TA NO.3582 OF 2012.** **ANNEXURE B : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.11.2012 IN TA NO.3582 OF 2012 IN WP(C) NO.33879/2011.** **ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN T.A.** **ANNEXURE D : COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** **ANNEXURE E : COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN TA NO.3582 OF 2012 IN WP(C) NO.33879/2011.** **ANNEXURE F : COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03.04.2013 IN TA NO.3582 OF 2012 IN WP(C) NO.33879/2011.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE.** **jg** ## THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................................... OP(KAT) No.3890 of 2013 .................................................................... Dated this the 18[th] day of November, 2013. ## J U D G M E N T ## Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. - 1.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, quite in extenso. - 2.Challenge is against a decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal refusing to come to the aid of the petitioner and to hold that he possesses the qualification for the Post of Police Constable (Tele-communication) in terms of notification dated 12.11.2007 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The academic qualification and technical qualification notified for the said post were as follows:- - “7.Qualifications: - 1.General Educational Qualifications : Pass in SSLC Examination or its equivalent. - 2.Technical: NTC in Radio /Television /Electronics/ Tele-communication / Electrical Engineering/ Computer/Information Technology or equivalent OP(KAT) 3890/13 -2- approved by Government of Kerala or equivalent qualification prescribed in respect of Ex-Service Personnel.” - 3.The applicant, admittedly, did not possess the qualification enumerated at serial No.2. Instead, he contended that he possesses B.Sc in Electronics and Computer Hardware and that should be treated as a higher qualification than the one prescribed. 4.The impugned order of the Tribunal shows the effort taken at that level to come to the aid of the petitioner to the best extent possible. Following interlocutory orders, the State Police Chief moved the Director of Technical Education to inform whether the qualification possessed by the applicant could be treated as equivalent to the technical qualification notified by the PSC for the Post. The report of the Director of Technical Education, that was given following that, was not to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, since the answer given against the applicant was based only on certain aspects, which were not comprehensive. This followed by OP(KAT) 3890/13 -3- yet another order of the Tribunal on 27.11.2012, which we think it is profitable to extract. We do so. “We passed an order on 25.09.2012 directing the 4[th] respondent, the State Police Chief to inform this Tribunal whether the qualification acquired by the applicant can be treated as a superior qualification which pre-supposes the acquisition of the notified qualification for the post of Police Constable (Telecommunication) by the Public Service Commission in Ext.P2. The applicant has produced the syllabi of the courses as Annexures A7 and A8. We directed the 4th respondent to get the assistance of the Director or Technical Education to compare the syllabi (Annexures A7 and A8) and to find out whether a person clearing a course with Annexure A7 syllabus can be treated as one who was also passed the course having Annexure A8 syllabus. But, we notice that a wrong question, that is, whether the qualification acquired by the applicant is equivalent to the qualification notified by the Public Service Commission has been referred to the Director of Technical Education and naturally, the said Officer returned a wrong answer. In view of the above position, the matter is remitted to the 4th respondent again for a fresh decision in the light of the order of OP(KAT) 3890/13 -4- this Tribunal dated 25.09.2012. This the 4[th] respondent shall do within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” - 5.After that, the State Police Chief, who is the 4th respondent in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, filed a statement to the following effect: - “2. It is submitted that the Director of Technical Education constituted a Committee to compare the Syllabus of the courses, B.Sc Electronics with Computer Hardware and National Trade Certificate in Electronics Mechanic. The findings of the Committee is furnished below: - 1.In the trade Electronics Mechanics, 75% of the total Syllabus contents is for obtaining practical skills, and 25 per cent for obtaining theoretical knowledge to the stake holders in the basic Electronics field. - 2.73% of the total syllabus of the Course B.Sc Electronics Mechanics focusing on theoretical Knowledge, 20% on the practical skill and 7% on Non technical skills. 3. It is submitted that the main focus of the trade OP(KAT) 3890/13 -5- Electronics Mechanics is to obtain practical skills in the Electronics Field, while the course B.Sc Electronics with Computer Hardware is designed with more focus on Theoretical knowledge in the Electronics field. 4. It is submitted that the Senior Joint Director (P) has reported that a person clearing a course with B.Sc Electronics with Computer Hardware (Annexure A7) Syllabus cannot be treated as one who had passed the course having the trade Electronics Mechanics (Annexure A8).” 6.In the light of the aforesaid, the learned Tribunal noticed that the State Police Chief, who heads the Department to which the petitioner seeks to be recruited, has clearly stated on the basis of the views of the Directorate of Technical Education that the qualification possessed by the applicant cannot be treated as one which pre-supposes the acquisition of the notified qualification. In that premise, the learned Tribunal also did not find its way to follow the ratio of the decision in Jyothi K.K. v. K.P.S.C. [2002 J.T. (Supp.(1) SC 85]. The Tribunal, rightly, made the distinction that the interpretation given to Rule 10(a)(ii) of the KS & SSR in OP(KAT) 3890/13 -6- Jyothi K.K. (supra) cannot mechanically apply to the facts of the case in hand, essentially, in view of the statement given by the State Police Chief on the basis of the opinion obtained from the Directorate of Technical Education. We do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal in adjudicating upon and deciding the application filed under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. No issue calls for interference in exercise of the authority under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. This original petition, therefore, fails. In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine. ## (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg/