IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13226 of 2010(S)
1. A.P.SURENDRAN,GDS MD (OFFICIATING),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
... Respondent
2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST
3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :31/05/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
& S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.13226 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
The petitioner applied for the post of
Grama Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer of Chempazhanthi
Post Office. The qualification prescribed is 8th
standard, preference to be given to candidates
with matriculation. The petitioner possesses
only the qualification of 8th standard. There is
only one post. The notification was issued in
terms of the prescribed qualifications.
Thereafter, the establishment invited for
interview, only those candidates who possessed
matriculation. Admittedly, as against one
vacancy, there were sufficient number of
candidates, among matriculates. The petitioner
challenged his exclusion from interview. The
Tribunal was not impressed to uphold the
petitioner’s contention.
W.P.(C).No.13226 of 2010
:: 2 ::
2. The learned counsel for the
petitioner argued that the impugned action of
the establishment amounts to wholesale
reservation in favour of a category among those
in the field of choice in terms of the
recruitment rules. What has been done is not a
reservation, but is only weeding out those who
would be away from the priority by application
of the preference to be given to matriculate. It
is not a case where the Department has isolated
the petitioner. They have applied a yardstick
of weeding out those who were not matriculates.
Matriculation being the preferred qualification,
we do not find any illegality or error of
jurisdiction in the Tribunal having affirmed the
action of the establishment. We are also not
impressed with the contention that the
petitioner’s case is covered by the decision of
this court in Minimol v. Sree Sankaracharya
University of Sanskrit {2010 (1) KLT 74}. That
issue related to an action whereby the
W.P.(C).No.13226 of 2010
:: 3 ::
University excluded persons with very hgh
qualifications from being considered at par with
those who had the “ability to read and write”.
This court took the view that to push forward
those who have only the “ability to read and
write” in public employment, the University had
acted fairly in excluding those with higher
qualifications. We are, therefore, of the view
that the said decision has no bearing on the
legal issue in the case on hand.
For the aforesaid reasons, this writ
petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed
in limine.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge.