High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions dismissed, adhering to Ext.P2 no...

Vipin V., Arun T., Prasad K.P. and Shinith K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, State of Kerala, Union of India and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 6151 of 2010 (T)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V. Chitambaresh
Judgment Date
2012-02-29
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions dismissed, adhering to Ext.P2 notification.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vipin V.
  • Arun T.
  • Prasad K.P.
  • Shinith K.

Respondents

  • Kerala Public Service Commission
  • State of Kerala
  • Union of India
  • Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
  • • Hanson P. Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. C. Sasidharan
  • • Rose Michael
  • • T. P. M. Ibrahim Khan
  • • P. Parameswaran Nair
  • • Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha
  • • V. V. Nandagopal Nambiar

Case Synopsis & Summary

These connected writ petitions challenge a Kerala Public Service Commission notification Ext.P2 inviting applications for the post of Work Assistant in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The petitioners claim they were excluded from the final ranked list despite possessing qualifications that should be recognized for eligibility. Clause 7 of Ext.P2 lays down two limbs: (i) qualifications by certificates or institutions (ITI, Craftsman Certificate, Junior Technical School Certificate or other technical certificates) and (ii) the trades in which those certificates authorize appointment (Mechanic – Motor Vehicle, Mechanic – Diesel, Electrician, ITI Tractor Mechanism). The PSC contends that the two limbs must be read conjunctively and that, overall, the petitioners do not satisfy both limbs; several petitioners lack the required ITI or the specific trades, and at least one holds an Automobile Engineering certificate rather than the requisite Mechanic (Motor Vehicle). The petitioners urge equivalence of qualifications or institutions, relying on Ext.P7 and a Full Bench decision (Suma v. Kerala Public Service Commission) to argue that equivalence should be recognized where appropriate. The court, applying the conjunctive reading, holds that the petitioners do not meet the prescribed criteria and that the Full Bench decision prohibits PSC from recognizing improvised equivalences. It reiterates that illegality cannot be perpetuated and that those advised contrary to this judgment would be remedied. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed, and the PSC is directed to adhere strictly to the notification’s terms.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaClause 7 of Ext.P2 notification

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Illegality cannot be perpetuated
  • Read conjunctively and not disjunctively

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that Ext.P2’s Clause 7 should be interpreted to permit equivalence of qualifications/institutions where warranted, rather than rigidly enforcing two independent gates. They cite Ext.P7 and a Full Bench precedent (Suma) to argue that PSC must recognize substantive qualifications even if not listed verbatim, and they urge the Court to consider equal or higher skill levels. They contend that several similarly qualified candidates have been advised for appointment in other bodies, implying inconsistent application of the rule. They also point to alleged inconsistencies in how equivalences are treated, and argue that the notification’s terms should be construed in light of merit and fairness under Article 226.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Clause 7 must be read conjunctively; both limbs—certificate/institution and the specific trade—must be satisfied for eligibility. They argue that the petitioners lack the required ITI or the specified trades, and thus do not meet the criteria. They rely on the Full Bench decision (Suma) to stress that the PSC cannot recognize informal equivalences or deviations from the notified qualifications. The court is urged to refrain from rewriting the notification, as doing so would undermine merit-based recruitment and create arbitrariness. They emphasize that illegality cannot be perpetuated and that any contrary advisals must be rectified in light of the judgment. The petitions should be dismissed to preserve the integrity of the selection process and the validity of the notification.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Suma v. Kerala Public Service Commission(2011 (1) KLT 1(F.B))PositiveFull Bench decision cited to bar equivalence of qualifications; the present judgment adheres to the principle that notified qualifications must be strictly followed.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Vipin V., Arun T., Prasad K.P. and Shinith K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, State of Kerala, Union of India and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/10TH PHALGUNA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 6151 of 2010 (T)** ## **--------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **----------------------** **1. VIPIN V., VAYAPPURATH HOUSE,** - **PAZHOOR P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE - 673661.** **2. ARUN T., THAZHE KOZHIKALAM, MANNUR, KOZHIKODE - 673328.** **3. PRASAD K.P., KUNDYODAN PARAMBATH, CHOOLUR, KOZHIKODE - 673601.** **4. SHINITH K.,KANNANTHARA HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KODUVALLY VIA. KOZHIKODE - 673572.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** **1. KERALA PUBLIC SERIVCE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION NEW DELHI.** **4. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R,R3 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI R,R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R,R-3 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R,R4 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL R BY SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-02-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 6440/2010, WPC. 8443/2010, WPC. 21136/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.C. NO/ 6151 OF 2010** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** - **P1 COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 12-3-2008 OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR CATEGORY NO. 119 /2008 FOR THE POST OF WORK ASSISTANTS IN THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION.** - **P2 COY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TOT HE 1ST PETITIONER** - **P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER** - **P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 4TH** petitioner - **P6 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22-2-1984 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **P7 COPY OF G.O. NO. 2910/05/LABOUR DATED 21-10-2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **P8(a) COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **P8(b) COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE 2ND** petitioner - **P8(c) COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER** - **P8(d) COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER** - **P9(a) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, KPSC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **P9(b) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, KPSC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **P9(C) COPY OF the REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST, 3RD PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN, KPSC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **P10 COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 25-4-2006** - **P11 COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE JUNIOR TECHNICAL SCHOOL CERTIFICATE** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS** ## **NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **SMM** ## **V.CHITAMBARESH,J.** = = = = = = = = = = **W.P.(C) Nos. 6151,6440,** **8443,21136 of 2010** = = = = = = = == = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of February, 2012 ## J U D G M E N T All these writ petitions are connected. I shall refer to the parties and exhibits in W.P(C).No. 21136 of 2010 for the sake of convenience. 2. The writ petitions relate to the recruitment to the post of Work Assistant in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short). Ext.P2 is the notification inviting applications from eligible candidates. 3. Clause 7 thereof prescribes the qualification and reads as under. “ 7. Qualifications:- 1. (a) Must possess ITI or Craftsman Certificate or Junior Technical School Certificate or Certificate of any other Technical Educational Institutions in the Trades of Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) or Mechanic (Diesel) or Electrician or ITI Tractor Mechanism. OR (b) KGTE Certificate (Automobile ) or KGCE in Automobile Engineering Physical Qualification : Must be Physically fit to do work of arduous nature” **W.P.(C) Nos. 6151,6440, 8443,21136 of 2010** 2 The petitioners do not find a place in the final ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC for short). Hence they have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The PSC asserts that the petitioners do not satisfy the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P2 notification. The PSC further contends that Clause 7.1.(a) contains two limbs and that the petitioners have to satisfy both of them to be eligible to find a place in the ranked list. The PSC concludes by stating that it is incompetent to consider the equivalence of qualification in view of the law laid down in **Suma vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (2011 (1) KLT 1(F.B) ).** 5. A mere look at Clause 7 of Ext.P2 notification makes the position very clear. The first limb deals with the Certificates or Institutions and are enumerated below: i) ITI ii) Craftsman Certificate **W.P.(C) Nos. 6151,6440, 8443,21136 of 2010** 3 iii) Junior Technical School Certificate iv) Certificate of any other Technical Educational Institutions . The second limb of Clause 7 deals with the trade or discipline in respect of which the certificates have to be obtained and are enumerated below: i) Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) ii) Mechanic (Diesel) iii) Electrician iv) ITI Tractor Mechanism. The qualification has to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively as contended by the petitioners. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.21136 of 2010 and 6440 of 2010 do not hold Junior Technical School Certificates in the trades mentioned in the second limb. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6151 of 2010 are not ITI holders in the trades mentioned in the second limb. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8443 of 2010 holds a Certificate in Automobile **W.P.(C) Nos. 6151,6440, 8443,21136 of 2010** 4 Engineering and not Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) 6. A faint plea was made regarding the equivalence of the institutions on the basis of Ext.P7 order in W.P.(C) No.6151 of 2010. It is contended that Model ITI is treated on par with State ITI /ITC and that the PSC is bound to recognise it. The Full Bench decision quoted above specifically debars the PSC from indulging in such exercises. 7. It is pointed out in W.P.(C)No 6151 of 2010 that once Anoop.K who possess the same qualification as that of the petitioners has been advised by the PSC for appointment. It is also contented that this specific averment in the writ petition has not been denied by the counter affidavit filed by PSC. Suffice it to say that the PSC will strictly adhere to the notification in the light of the findings rendered above. Any person advised contrary to this judgment would be put on notice and remedial steps taken. The petitioners also contend that persons having similar **W.P.(C) Nos. 6151,6440, 8443,21136 of 2010** 5 qualifications have been advised for appointment in Kerala Water Authority. It is trite law that illegality cannot be perpetuated and the petitioners cannot bank on the same. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE smm **W.P.(C) Nos. 6151,6440, 8443,21136 of 2010** 6