The Kerala Public Service Commission vs Rajalekshmi R. Chandralayam

Antony Dominic, J.—This Original Petition is filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission challenging the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 1829/2012, which was filed by the respondent herein.

By Exhibit P1 notification, the PSC invited applications to the post of Laboratory Technician Gr. II in the Health Services Department. Qualifications prescribed for the post read as follows:

"7. Qualifications:

(a) General:-

A pass in Pre-Degree or equivalent examination with not less than 50% marks or B grade in Science subjects. Relaxation of 10% marks will be allowed to those belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and 5% marks to socially and Educationally Backward Communities who come under the purview of GO(P)208/66/PD dated 21/05/1966 and subsequent orders/amendments.

SSLC or equivalent for Ex-Servicemen who have passed Class I Blood Transfusion Assistant Test and have put in not less than 15 years service in the Armed Forces.

(b) Technical:

A pass in one year medical Laboratory Technician''s Training Course conducted by the Medical College in Kerala or by the Public Health Laboratory Thiruvananthapuram or any qualification equivalent thereto.

Note:- 1) In the case of persons who have completed Degree Course in Science, ''B'' Grade in Pre-degree examination will not be insisted."

The respondent who passed Pre-degree with 47.8 % marks and is also having degree in Medical Laboratory Technology with 2nd class was an applicant to the post. However, by Exhibit P3 issued by the PSC, her application was rejected stating that she did not possess the marks prescribed in the notification. Challenging Exhibit P3, she filed W.P. (C) No. 59/2011 before this Court. On the constitution of the Tribunal, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal, which numbered the case as T.A. No. 1829/2012.

Before the Tribunal, the PSC contended that the degree obtained by the respondent is in Paramedical Science and hence it is a technical qualification. According to them, the Note contained in the notification concerning relaxation is applicable only for the general educational qualification and not for the technical qualification specified for the post. On that basis, the PSC contended that BSC MLT is a degree in Paramedical Science and not a degree in Science coming under the general educational qualification, which alone is eligible for the benefit of the relaxation.

However, the Tribunal in its order dated 6.6.2012 found that the B.Sc. degree obtained by the respondent is a degree in Science. For this purpose, the Tribunal referred to Exhibit P4 degree certificate. The Tribunal held that it being a degree in Science, the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the degree is in Paramedical Science. The Tribunal also held that the notification did not insist that the degree in Science should be in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. Accordingly, the respondent was held entitled to the benefit of relaxation as contained in the Note specified in the notification. It is this order, which is under challenge before us.

We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

According to the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, the Note applies only to educational qualifications specified in the notification and that since the degree possessed by the respondent is a degree in the technical qualification prescribed, it cannot be taken advantage of by the respondent to claim relaxation. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Note only provided that candidates who have completed degree in Science are eligible for relaxation. He referred us to the degree certificate obtained by the respondent and pointed out that what is obtained by the respondent is a degree in Science entitling her for the relaxation allowed in the notification. He also contended that the Original Petition is highly belated and that the contention now raised is not one which was relied on in Exhibit P3 order of rejection.

We have considered the submissions made by both sides.

The dispute raised has to be resolved with reference to the provisions contained in the notification. We have already extracted the relevant portion of the notification issued by the PSC. In Note (1) to Clause (7) of the notification, what is specified is that in the case of persons who have completed degree course in Science, ''B'' Grade in pre-degree examination will not be insisted. Thus, as per the terms of the notification, to be eligible for the relaxation, the candidate concerned should have completed degree course in Science. Exhibit P4 before the Tribunal is the certificate issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University. Though this certificate is issued by the Faculty of Medicine, the certificate shows that the candidate has been admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Medical Laboratory Technology. Therefore, it is obvious that the degree obtained by the respondent is a degree in Science, which alone is the requirement in the Note contained in the notification.

We also note from the notification that the PSC has not specified that the degree in Science should either be in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. or that for the benefit of the Note, the degree obtained should be in the disciplines related to the educational qualification specified in the notification. If that be so, as held by the Tribunal, so long as the respondent has completed degree course in Science, which is evident from the degree certificate issued to her, she is eligible for the benefit of relaxation.

We also notice that in Exhibit P3, the only reason stated by the PSC for rejecting the candidature of the respondent was that she did not possess 50% marks in Pre-degree. The contentions advanced before the Tribunal and before this Court are not that the respondent did not possess 50% in Pre-degree and therefore was ineligible, but that the respondent is not possessing a degree in Science as specified in the notification. In other words, the contention now advanced by the PSC is not what was relied on in Exhibit P3 issued by the PSC. Such a course of action by the PSC is also impermissible as held by a Division Bench of this Court in S. Shajahan Vs. The Kerala PSC and Another, .

The learned counsel for the PSC contended that if the interpretation as above is accepted, the candidates will be taking double advantage, which is not the intention of the notification. We are unable to accept this contention, for the reason that the Tribunal and this Court are bound to decide the eligibility of the candidate as per the terms of the notification. On that basis, if the contentions are appreciated, we have to uphold the eligibility of the respondent and the view taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted.

In the result, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Time for compliance will stand extended by one month.