IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH POUSHA 193 OP (CAT).No. 4560 of 2012 (Z) ----------------------------- OA.174/2012 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ------------------ PETITIONER / APPLICANT : ---------------------------------------- RAHUL A. RAVI, MANNU CHERAYIL, PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS : -------------------------------------------------- 1. CHIEF STAFF OFFICER (P & A) SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND HEAD QUARTERS, KOCHI ”
006.
2. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI-682 006.
3. VIPIN T.P. THITTAYIL HOUSE, PONURRINNI, ERNAKULAM-682 021. BY ADV. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP (CAT).No. 4560 of 2012 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 174/12. EXT.P2 : COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO. 174/12. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2 7-2012 IN O.A. NO. 174/12. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
& K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(CAT) No.4560 of 2012 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J The petitioner applied for the post of Ammunition Repair Labourer (SS), as per Annexure R1 notification. The petitioner was called for the written test as also the interview. It is his contention that at the interview he was asked as to his qualification and when he stated that he had not passed matriculation, no further questions were asked and he was asked to leave. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per Annexure R1 notification the qualification prescribed for the post of Ammunition Repair Labourer (SS) is a pass in Standard VIII from a recognized institution or Board. The said essential qualification having not been modified, it was not permissible for the interview board to have prescribed the higher qualification. O.P.(CAT) No.4560 o”
2. 2. The learned Assistant Solicitor General alertly points out that the note in Annexure R1 notification itself reveals that all the Group D posts in the Central Government have been upgraded to Group C with effect from 01.01.2006 and the minimum qualification required for such posts is matriculation or equivalent, as per the recommendations of the VIth Pay Commission. In the context of the clear stipulation in the note, which is part of Annexure R1 notification, it cannot be gainsaid that there was a change in the essential qualification midway after the selection commenced.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that the petitioner being a person without even a 10th standard pass, would not have noticed the note. The petitioner having applied for the post, which was notified as per Annexure R1, cannot plead ignorance of a specific condition stipulated in the notification. It was incumbent on the petitioner to have ensured his eligibility to apply, with reference to the basic qualification prescribed for the post as O.P.(CAT) No.4560 o”
3. per the notification. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal and also before this Court that the stipulation of a higher qualification was done midway, is misconceived as noted by the Tribunal. The initial notification itself mandated the higher qualification. His application was not rejected at the initial stage only because he had filled up the column for educational qualification as 'having completed the Xth standard'.
4. The Tribunal found that the respondents have strictly adhered to the criteria prescribed in the original notification and no change whatsoever was made.
5. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is unassailable. However, it is appropriate to observe that in order to remove unnecessary confusion and conflict with regard to the essential qualification prescribed, it would have been appropriate if the notification itself showed the essential qualification for each post, without leaving it to be clarified by a Note. Especially in the context of the change in qualification having been brought O.P.(CAT) No.4560 o”
4. about in the year 2006, the Board ought to specify the essential qualification as against each post notified for recruitment. We hope, the Board will make necessary amends so that at least in future unnecessary litigations can be avoided. With the above observations, this Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sj 1/13