The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the KAT order rejecting the petitioner's application for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The court held the petitioner was ineligible as the required Ph.D. degree was obtained after the final application date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940
OP(KAT).No. 147 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 902/2017 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20-02-2018
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT
KAVITHA D.K, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.DIVAKARAN (LATE), RESIDING AT PUKAVALLOOR KONATHU VEEDU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PHONE-9497785787.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.S.ANIL (PADINJAREKOTA) SMT.A.SALINI LAL SRI.D.JUSTIN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI A J VARGHESE R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kkj
OP(KAT).No. 147 of 2018 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A.(TVM) NO.902/2017.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF MA.NO.1460/17 IN O.A.(TVM) NO.902/2018. EXHIBIT P3- COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN OA.NO.902/2017.
EXHIBIT P4- COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OA.NO.902/2017.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/02/2018 IN OA.NO.902/2018 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUIDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.
O.P.(KAT) No.147 of 2018
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Surendra Mohan, J.
The petitioner challenges exhibit P5 order of the KAT, Thiruvananthapuram (KAT for short) dated 20.02.2018 in O.A.No.902 of 2017. As per the said order, the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
-:2:-
O.P.(KAT) No.147 of 2018
she obtained in the year 2014. The last date for submission of applications as per annexure A9 notification was 02.01.2013. The petitioner submitted an application to the PSC. Her complaint is that, her application was rejected on the ground that she was ineligible to apply for the post.
-:3:-
O.P.(KAT) No.147 of 2018
itself was wrong and liable to be set aside. It was further contended that by the time the erratum notification was issued, the petitioner had obtained a Ph.D. Degree also and for the said reason, she was eligible to be considered even as per the UGC norms. It was therefore contended that, her exclusion from the process of selection was liable to be interfered with and set aside.
-:4:-
O.P.(KAT) No.147 of 2018
appears for the petitioner, the petitioner had qualified the NET on 26.06.2012. Thereafter, the UGC had changed the minimum marks required for qualifying the NET. The action of the UGC was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) 24723 of 2012. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court and the action of the UGC was found to be illegal. Therefore, it is contended that, she was in possession of the NET qualification that is stipulated by the PSC. It is further contended that, since the petitioner had obtained a Ph.D. Degree as on the date of the erratum notification, there was no justification in rejecting her application. On the above grounds, the counsel seeks interference with the order of the KAT.
-:5:-
O.P.(KAT) No.147 of 2018
stipulated for receipt of applications. She had obtained her MA Degree in Hindi in 2002 and her M Phil. Degree in the year 2005. Therefore, as on the date of the notification, her qualification was only M.Phil. Though it is contended that, she had qualified the NET, there is nothing on record to evidence the said fact. With respect to the further contention that, this Court had allowed her Writ Petition and set aside the action of the UGC cancelling the NET qualification obtained by her is also not supported by anything on record. Be that as it may, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the Apex Court has held subsequently that the UGC has sufficient powers to change the regulations even after the examinations for NET was conducted. The said law being binding on all under Article 141 of the Constitution, we shall proceed on the basis that, the petitioner does not possess the NET qualification. Since she has obtained her Ph.D. only on 19.09.2014, long after the last date for receipt of
-:6:-
O.P.(KAT) No.147 of 2018
applications, it has to be held that she was not qualified to apply as per the stipulations in Annexure A9. The date of the erratum notification is not at all relevant in examining the qualification of the candidate for the reason that the erratum notification only corrects the mistakes in the original notification. We have perused the order of the KAT. We find no infirmity therein warranting an interference with the same.
For the foregoing reasons, this Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE
Sd/- ANNIE JOHN JUDGE
kkj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a candidate can claim eligibility for a post based on qualifications obtained after the last date for submission of applications.
Whether the Kerala Public Service Commission had the authority to issue an erratum notification restricting exemptions from NET qualification.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the KAT's finding that the petitioner lacked requisite qualifications on the specified date.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) 24723 of 2012Referred¶47
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KAVITHA D.K
THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
ANNIE JOHN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
