Bindhu vs State of Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This Original Petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the decision rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 1569 of 2012. The Public Service Commission invited applications to the post of High School Assistants in English. The qualifications prescribed were:- (i) Bachelors Degree or Post Graduate Degree in English Language and Literature and (ii) B.Ed./B.T. with English as optional subject conferred or recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. In the absence of candidates with B.Ed./B.T. with English as optional subject, candidates with B.Ed/B.T. in any other subject conferred or recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala will be considered.

The petitioner claims that she is entitled to the benefit of reservation in favour of SIUC Nadar Community. She competed in the written test and was among those shortlisted. In the ultimate round, she was not selected.

The petitioner does not possess B.Ed./B.T. with English as optional subject She possesses B.Ed. in Mathematics. Therefore, she would fall within the zone of consideration only in the absence of candidates possessing B.Ed./B.T. with English as optional subject. However, the petitioner''s argument is that in so far as SIUC Nadars are concerned, she was the only one who had found place in the supplementary list of the shortlist and she is the one eligible to the vacancy that will have to go to the SIUC Nadar Community.

P.S.C.''s case is that there were enough and more number of successful candidates in the shortlist and supplementary list who possessed B.Ed./B.T. with English as optional subject and therefore, they did not have to go for any candidate who possesses B.Ed./B.T. in any other subject and whose eligibility for being considered would arise only in the absence of candidates with B.Ed./B.T. with English as optional subject.

The eligibility of a member of a community to claim a particular vacancy by reservation would arise only while applying the relevant quota and rota rules. Such quota and rota rules would apply only on the basis of the list of candidates who have been found eligible. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the refusal of P.S.C. to treat the petitioner as eligible.

Another contention of the petitioner is that Ext. P1 (v) G.O. (P) No. 2/2009 results in a modification of the statutory rules in K.E.R. only with effect from its date of publication i.e., 5.1.2009 and therefore, the P.S.C.''s notification issued for selection in 2006 cannot be controlled by that Government Order. Change of recruitment rules before any appointment is effected, can necessarily change the course of selection procedure even if the selection process had commenced. An applicant for appointment to public employment has no vested right in defeasance of the employer''s authority to modify the qualifications for appointment. Any change in the recruitment rule, before appointment, will regulate the selection process not with standing the qualification notified in the invitation of applications for recruitment. By now, this position is well settled by precedents of the Apex Court and the different High Courts including this Court. This ground also fails. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Original Petition fails.

In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed in limine.