Vinod A. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **VINOD A., AGED 39 YEARS** **S/O.ANANTHAN NAIR, SUKUMARA SADANAM, PUNUKKANNOOR, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691504.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN, THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.** - **3 THE KERALA STATE COIR CORPORATION LTD., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN-688001.** - **4 ADDL. R4. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN-695034.** **(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/05/2019 IN IA 01/2019.)** - **5 BINDHU T.K., THAZHATH HOUSE, MUTHUVARA, PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR, PIN680553.** **(ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/07/2019 IN IA 03/2019)** **R1-2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** **R4 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-082019, THE COURT ON 10-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P)** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 10th day of October 2019** This writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i. Call for records leading to issuance of Exhibit P9 notification and quash the same to the extent of noninclusion of the petitioner in the said notification by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to include the petitioner in the notification shortlisting the candidates for interview for the post of Personnel Manager in the third respondent. iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first and second respondents to take appropriate action upon Exhibit P10 and P12 petitions within a time limit to be fixed by this honourable Court. iv. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to issue advice memo to the petitioner as regards the post of Personnel Manager in the third respondent pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and the 4[th] respondent. 3. The petitioner, who was a candidate for selection to the post of Personnel Manager in the 3[rd] **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P) 3** respondent Corporation challenges the rejection of his candidature on the ground that he did not have the qualification as notified. Ext.P1 is the notification. The qualifications prescribed are as follows: “ _**Qualifications:** MBA with Personal Management from a recognized University/ Institution_ _OR_ _Degree in Law of a recognized University with specialization in Labour Laws.”_ 4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application. He has produced Exts.P3 to P7 mark sheets to show that he had studied 'Labour Law' as Paper III in Part I of the three year LLB course conducted by the University of Kerala. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P11 certificate issued by the University of Kerala to the effect that the Subject 'Labour law' is one of the elective subjects in the final year LLB three year course which was in vogue immediately prior to 2001 admissions and the contents of the two optional papers in Labour Law (Labour law I and Labour law II) and the contents of the compulsory paper Labour Law introduced in 1999 admissions are the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has studied the entire syllabus of **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P)** **4** the two elective papers of Labour Law as a compulsory paper and that the refusal on the part of the respondents to consider him for selection is therefore completely unjustifiable. 6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that the qualification prescribed was degree in law of a recognized University with specialization in Labour Laws. It is contended that the Public Service Commission has no power to consider the question of equivalence of qualifications and that only a person, who is qualified as per the notification is entitled for appointment pursuant to the same. It is submitted that where specialization is required, the contention that the contents of the optional papers had been condensed into one compulsory paper is not to be looked into by the Commission at all. Relying on a decision of this Court in _**Josekutty v. Public Service Commission**_ _**[2008 (4) KLT 546]**_ , it is contended that where the qualification requires specialization in a subject, studying of the subject as one of the compulsory papers would not do duty and that such candidates cannot be **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P)** **5** held to be qualified in terms of the notification. Considering the difference between “Special and Subsidiary Subjects”, this Court held that “Special” denotes something particular, peculiar, distinctive, exceptional and additional to the ordinary and it is only such specialization which can be considered as requisite qualification. It is also contended that the petitioner had not studied the Labour Law as an elective subject and had no specialization in Labour Law as required in the notification. It is stated that after conducting detailed scrutiny of application, the Commission published a short list on 28.11.2017 including 18 candidates who possess LLB Degree with Labour Law as an elective subject and the ranked list was published on 30.7.2018. It is stated that all the candidates included in the ranked list possess the prescribed notified qualification of either MBA with Personnel Management or Degree in Law with specialization in Labour Laws. 7. On a consideration of the contentions advanced, it is clear that the qualification notified was either MBA in Personnel Management or LLB with specialization in **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P) 6** Labour Laws. It has been held by this Court in _**Josekutty v. Public Service Commission**_ that specialization involves something more than the study of a subject as one of the compulsory subjects. It was held as follows:- “5. The prescription is of a qualification. A reading of Cls.(A) and (B) among the qualifications itself would show that the framers of the Rules were conscious of the fact that B.Com degree can be classified into different types. This is why while a person possessing B.Com degree with Co-operation as special subject, going by Clause(A), does not require any other qualification, a person who possess a B.Com degree without any further adjective as to the speciality or identity of the subject, requires Higher Diploma in Co-operation also, as provided by Cl.(B). 6. The word “special” denotes something that is particular: peculiar: distinctive: exceptional: additional to ordinary: detailed: confined or mainly applied to a particular subject, while “subsidiary” always denotes something subordinate (see Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary). To be subsidiary to something is to be connected with it but less important than it. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary provides the example: “I am taking History as a subsidiary subject, to mean that the said subject is not studied in as great depth as a main subject.” In contradistinction thereto, the words “major; key; central; principal; chief; prime”, are treated as synonyms of the word “main”. (again see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary). A “Subsidiary Subject” is not a “Special Subject”. What is required in terms of R.5 of the Rules and Clause(A) in the third column against Category No.2 in the Table thereunder denotes the study of a subject, in quality, additional to ordinary; detailed and exceptional and not the study of that subject as a subsidiary one.” The said judgment has also been affirmed in appeal. 8. It is specifically contended by the KPSC that all the persons included in the ranked list, who had **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P)** **7** LLB, were persons with specialization in Labour Laws as provided in the notification. In the above view of the matter, the contention raised by the petitioner that he had covered the syllabus of the two elective papers in Labour Law in the compulsory Paper cannot be a reason to hold that he is entitled for inclusion in the ranked list. The notification having specified LLB with specialization in Labour Laws as a qualification and in view of the fact that there were persons available with such qualification for inclusion in the ranked list, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to inclusion in the ranked list though he does not possess specialization in Labour Laws cannot be accepted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** ## **sab** **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P)** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16/01/2015.** **EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST DATED 04/01/2001 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AS REGARDS FIRST LLB (THREE YEAR COURSE)** **EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST DATED 31/07/2002 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AS REGARDS THE SECOND LLB (THREE YEAR COURSE) EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST DATED 31/07/2002 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AS REGARDS SECOND LLB (THREE YEAR COURSE) EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST DATED 16/09/2002 AS REGARDS THIRD LLB (THREE YEAR COURSE) EXAMINATION ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST DATED 26/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AS REGARDS SECOND LLB (THREE YEAR COURSE) EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.208/17/ER IV A DATED 28/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/12/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** **WP(C).No.1946 OF 2018(P) 9** **EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05/01/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**