SUJITH E.S. V. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WP(C)/17825/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Sujith E.S., a Scheduled Caste candidate, seeking appointment as a Studio Manager in the Kerala State Film Development Corporation Ltd. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) had issued a notification for the post, exempting Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates from the experience requirement under certain conditions. Sujith, despite lacking the required experience, was included in the rank list and claimed entitlement to the post following the death of the candidate ranked first. The court examined the qualifications required for the post, the specific exemptions applicable, and the procedural adherence by KPSC and the Corporation in filling the vacancy. The dismissal of the petition was based on the lack of requisite experience and the procedural correctness in not advising the petitioner for appointment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694571 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.Hemanathan and Shashibhusan, Vimala Kumari v. State, Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Chairman Coir Board Cochin and Ors. v. Dr.Das Anitha Ravindranath, State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors., Vijayakumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature, Patna, State of Maharashtra v. Shashikant S Pujari & Ors.
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P C SASIDHARAN; A VASUDEVAN; JOSE JOSEPH; MARY JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAJITH; JOSIE MATHEW
• Keywords: Experience Requirement; Kerala Public Service Commission; Scheduled Caste; Writ petition; Studio Manager

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940 WP(C).No. 17825 of 2017 PETITIONER: SUJITH E.S. S/O.P.R.SURENDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT 305 B (10/348) EANTHANAL, VALLICHIRA, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 574. BY ADVS.SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.JOSIE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): 1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004 2 THE KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHALACHITRA KALABHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 3 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY FOR CINEMA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC R2 BY ADVS.SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN(Sr) SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH, SC R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PBS WP(C).No. 17825 of 2017 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION 317/2011 DATED 14.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION DATED 30.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RANK LIST NO.678/14/SSIV ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION DATED 11.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 6202/E1/2013/K.S.F.D.C DATED 09.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.06.2017. EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA DATED 28.01.2011 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ACCOMPANIED BY A COVERING LETTER DATED 28.01.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/03/2017 IN WP(C) NO. 20179/14 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 17TH JANUARY 1979 BEARING SRO NO. 167/79 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT R2(F) A TRUE OF THE LETTER DATED 30.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R2(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE PBS 27/6/2018 P.V.ASHA, J. -------------------------- W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2018 JUDGMENT The Kerala Public Service Commission issued Ext.P1 notification on 14.10.2011 inviting application for appointment to the post of Studio Manager in the Kerala State Film Development Corporation Ltd., the 2nd respondent, notifying one vacancy by way of direct recruitment. The qualifications prescribed were the following: “7. Qualifications: - Diploma in Cinema (3 years Course) from a recognized institution and 8 years experience in the production of Film as Production Executive/Producer/Director with administrative experience. OR Graduation and 12 years experience with production of Film as Production Executive/Producer/Director with administrative experience. Note:- The qualification of experience shall not be insisted in the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in the absence of candidates with the prescribed experience for direct recruitment to the post. In service training will be given, if necessary to such candidates during the period of probation in the respective post.” Thus as per the note, experience was not insisted in the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was stated that in-service training would be given if necessary to such candidates during the period of probation period in the respective post. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He is a Post Graduate in Commerce; he does not have W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 2 any experience in production of film. The KPSC issued Ext.P4 rank list on 11.12.2014 as corrected in Ext.P5. The petitioner was included as rank no.2 in list 2. In list 1 it was stated that the inclusion of the candidate is subject to final orders of this Court in W.P(c).No.20179 of 2014 dated 6.8.2014. The rank list was brought into force w.e.f 21.11.2014 as corrected in Ext.P5 erratum notification. It is stated that a candidate, who was stated to have been included in list 1, challenged rejection of his experience certificate. The petitioner filed this writ petition stating that rank No.1 in list 2 Sri Nandakumar.K, who was working as Film Officer under the 2nd respondent itself, had already expired and therefore he is the next eligible person to be appointed as Studio Manager in accordance with the rank list. The petitioner claimed that since the vacancy is already reported, the KPSC ought to have advised the petitioner when the rank no.1 already expired. He also pointed out that steps were being taken for re-notifying the post in view of the judgment in W.P(c).No.20179 of 2014. The petitioner claimed that the said writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the submission recorded on behalf of the standing counsel for the respondents that they are proposing to re-notify the post. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were delaying the advice and appointments only to avoid the candidates belonging to W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 3 Scheduled Caste communities. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavits and additional counter affidavits. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent on 26.10.2017, it was stated that Sri V.N.Pradeepkumar had filed W.P(c).No.20179 of 2014 since his application for the post of Studio Manager was rejected in the absence of counter signature by the 2nd respondent in his experience certificate. It was stated that on the basis of the interim order passed in his case he participated in the interview and he was provisionally included in the rank list in list I. It is stated that list II can be operated only after the list I is exhausted. Since the list was published subject to the result of the final orders in W.P(c).No.20179/2014, list II could not be operated. It was stated that in view of the fact that the writ petition filed by the candidate included in the list I provisionally was not disposed of, list I as well as list II could not be operated. However, the said writ petition was closed on 14.3.2017. It is submitted that they do not intend to fill up the post based on Ext.P1 notification and that they have decided to issue a fresh notification through the PSC and accordingly that writ petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner therein to apply for and participate in the W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 4 process of selection on the basis of the re-notification. However, the 1st respondent stated that since they did not receive any intimation regarding the re-notification they advised rank No.1. In the meanwhile, they sought clarification in respect of the turn of reservation for differently abled candidates, which was varied by Government in its order dated 6.5.2017 as 1, 34 and 67. It is stated that the vacancy remained unfilled pending the receipt of clarification from the Government. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that when the counter affidavit was filed by the PSC on 26.10.2017, the list had not expired and that the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the KPSC to advise him on the ground that the first rank holder was no more. 5. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit on 09.07.2017 stating that they have, as per Ext.P2(a) letter dated 9.6.2017, requested the 2nd respondent to take emergent steps to re-notify the post immediately after the judgment dated 14.3.2017 in W.P(c).No.20179 of 2014. In the said writ petition it was recorded that the Corporation intends to initiate fresh notification for selection for the post of Studio Manager in which the petitioner therein was allowed to participate. W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 5 6. Thereafter, an additional counter affidavit was filed on 15.9.2017 in which the 2nd respondent pointed out that while prescribing qualification for the post, it does not provide for any exemption from experience, producing Ext.R2(b) recruitment rules, according to which the qualification is as follows: “Diploma in Cinema (3 years course) from a recognized institution and 8 years experience in the production of Film as Production Executive/Producer/Director with administrative experience. Or Graduation and 12 years experience with production of film as production Executive /Producer/Director with administrative experience.” They have also produced the proforma sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. According to them, the petitioner is not qualified for appointment as Studio Manager since he does not have any experience. It was further stated that the post of Studio Manager is a senior level post below the rank of Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent and the candidate appointed should have adequate experience. It was stated as follows in paragraph 7: “7. It is humbly submitted that the post of Studio Manager is a senior level post below the rank of Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent and a candidate appointed should have adequate qualification, experience in filmdom with administrative capacity, to control and run Chithranjali Studio as prime establishment of its kind in Kerala, owned by 2nd respondent. The post of Studio Manager in the 2nd respondent corporation demands competency and caliber of highly experienced professional who is well versed in the making of film. Studio Manager is the head of Chitranjali Studio Complex where diversified technical W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 6 activities such as Sound Recording, Editing, Digital Intermediate Colour grading, Outdoor shooting etc., are taking place in addition to administrative matters of the entire staff including technically qualified section heads viz Chief Sound Engineer, DI colourist, Conformist, Cameraman, technicians and other employees. Apart from the prescribed academic qualification, person with required experience in the production of film as production executive/producer/director with administrative experience alone can discharge the duties of Studio Manager. The duties and responsibilities of Studio Manager involve control, supervision and co-ordination of all the sections in studio complex. The Studio Manager is the one who has to advice management of the 2nd respondent in all technical mattes in film making. Above all, Studio Manager is responsible for bringing business and income for studio by maximum utilization of studio facilities by private film-producers. Posting a novice/inexperienced personnel in the field like the petitioner will be hazardous and detrimental for the 2nd respondent, a public sector undertaking. xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx” It was stated that the decision to re-notify the post was taken bona fide in view of the importance of the post and on being convinced that an in-service training during the period of probation, cannot be taken as a substitute for the kind of experience required for a Studio Manager. It was also stated that it was only to get a qualified and experienced hand competent to run the studio, which is engaged in various activities of film production that are highly technical in nature and on re-notification, there is every possibility for getting suitably qualified and experienced candidate. 7. The 2nd respondent has filed a reply affidavit in answer to the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent in which it was stated that the 2nd respondent is a Government company and the 2nd respondent may seek advice of KPSC on matters relating to recruitment of employees as per W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 7 Ext.R2(e) notification issued on 17.1.1979. According to them, Section 3(2) of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Corporations and Companies) Act 1970 in the case of Government companies is by the Board of Directors of the company with the Public Service Commission on matters referred to that Section 3(2) (a) or/and (b) of Act 19 of 1970. It is further stated that under explanation to this provision, the word `employee' shown in sub section 2 of Section 3 does not include Director, Managing agent, secretary or treasurer, manager or secretary of a Government company. Therefore, it is stated that the post of Studio Manager does not fall within Section 3(2) of Act 19 of 1970 and therefore there need not be any consultation by the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent with the 1st respondent on any of the matters mentioned in Section 3(2) of Act 19 of 1970. It is stated that these provisions came to the notice of the 2nd respondent only after the counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition and on enquiries made it was revealed that no consultation was made by the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent with the 1st respondent on matters relating to the method of recruitment to the post of Studio Manager or on the principles in making appointment by direct recruitment, to the post of Studio Manager as envisaged under Section 3(2) of Act 19 of W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 8 1970 and therefore it is stated that the 1st respondent does not have any authority to advise candidates from Ext.P4 ranked list for effecting appointment. It was also stated that whether the qualification of experience required for the post of Studio Manager as per the Recruitment Rules of the 2nd respondent should be insisted for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, in the absence of candidates with the prescribed experience for direct recruitment to the post is a matter which should be exclusively left to the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent has no say in this regard. It is neither mentioned in Ext.P1 that the qualification of experience shall not be insisted in the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in the absence of candidates with the required experience for direct recruitment and in service training would be given during the period of probation nor any provision in this regard in the KPSC Office Manual or elsewhere would bind the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the vacancy happened to be reported mistakenly by the then Managing Director on 28.1.2011 without noticing these facts. It is stated that the 2nd respondent cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate without having experience prescribed in Ext.R2(b) recruitment rules. It is further stated that Ext.P4 rank list has already expired and the 1st respondent had advised rank No.1 to the post of Studio Manager but in the meanwhile W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 9 that candidate Sri Nandakumar.K had already expired and therefore the question of his appointment did not arise. It is stated that during the currency of the rank list no vacancy was reported to the PSC and as per Ext.R2(f) letter dated 30.01.2018 the 1st respondent has already informed that it had cancelled the rank list Ext.P4 on expiry of the 3 year period. The 2nd respondent stated that as per Ext.R2(g) letter the 1st respondent was informed that it is not liable to report any vacancy to the PSC. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner does not have any right to compel the 2nd respondent to appoint him when he does not have the requisite qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. 8. The petitioner filed reply affidavit dated 4.4.2018 stating that the Managing Director who was a member of the interview board who selected the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the post does not come under the purview of the KPSC or that there cannot be any exemption for SC/ST candidates from experience. Therefore, he claimed that despite the expiry of the rank list on 21.11.2017, he is entitled to get advised and appointed since a vacancy was already reported even before the notification was issued and the KPSC had advised a candidate who is dead. 9. The PSC filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the list W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 10 had already expired and it was cancelled with effect from the forenoon of 21.11.2017. It was stated that the rank no.1 was advised on 20.10.2017 against the vacancy reported on 29.1.2011 and that the 2nd respondent had reported the death of the advised candidate as per their letter dated 30.11.2017. Since the validity of the rank list expired and the rank list is cancelled, a further advice is not possible. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.Hemanathan and Shashibhusan and argued that an advice memo issued to a dead candidate is null and void and the KPSC need not have waited for a non-joining report since advice did not materialise in any appointment. It is also contended that since the writ petition was filed during the currency of the rank list pointing out the death of rank No.1 and the PSC had filed counter affidavit well before the expiry of the rank list, they cannot be heard to contend that the advice cannot be made to the second rank holder on the ground that rank list expired. 12. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 11 judgment of the Full Bench in Vimala Kumari v. State [1994 (2) KLT 47] in which this Court held that the KPSC cannot advice any candidate after the expiry of the rank list in case the vacancy is not reported during the currency of the rank list and therefore this Court cannot compel the KPSC to advise any candidate after the expiry of the rank list. The judgment of the Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [AIR 1991 SC 1612] was also relied on and it was argued that a mere inclusion in the rank list does not confer on the petitioner any indefeasiblle right to get appointed, especially when he does not have the requisite qualification. Relying on the judgment in Chairman Coir Board Cochin and Ors. v. Dr.Das Anitha Ravindranath [2015 KHC 945], it was argued that the 2nd respondent is free to take a decision as to whether to appoint or not to appoint any of the candidates from the rank list and in case there are valid reasons, the 1st respondent can refuse to make appointments. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A.No.804 of 1973, the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Tax Case Appeal No.199 of 2016 and the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated 16.1.2008 in Shashibhusan v. District Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. in support of his contention that W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 12 the advice made in favour of a dead candidate is a nullity and therefore the vacancy is liable to be treated as fresh one, against which no advice is made and therefore he is liable to be advised. 14. The petitioner claims advice and appointment on the ground that he is included as rank No.2 in the list II and rank No.1 is no more. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent points out that the notification itself was issued by the PSC without considering the qualification prescribed for the post in the recruitment rules granting exemption to the 12 years' experience prescribed in the rules. Since the rank list is already cancelled, there is no question of any further advice by the PSC. 15. The question to be considered by this Court is whether the PSC should be directed to advise the petitioner even assuming that the advice made for appointment of a dead candidate was null and void, when the appointing authority-the 2nd respondent objects his appointment on the ground that he lacks the requisite experience of 12 years as Production Executive or Producer or Director in production of film. Ext.R2(b) recruitment rules, do not show any provision for exemption or relaxation from the prescription of experience. But the KPSC notified exemption for those scheduled castes/tribe candidates who were otherwise qualified, in the W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 13 absence of qualified hands, with a rider that they would be given training during the period of probation, if necessary. It is pertinent to note that the period of probation in the case of a directly recruited Studio Manager is a continuous period of 2 years within a maximum period of 3 years. Even if training is given during the entire period of probation, there will be a further shortage of 9 years' experience. It would appear that the KPSC has given exemption in the light of the general orders issued by the Government to exempt the scheduled caste/tribe candidates. But there is no direction that when large number of years of experience is required, exemption can be granted or that whatever be the requisite experience, that can be relaxed in the case of SC/ST candidates. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, Article 335 of the Constitution of India, while directing consideration of the claims of members of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribe in making appointment to services and posts, also imposes a condition to ensure maintenance of efficiency in administration. It does not provide for a total exemption or lowering of standard. Though it may be necessary to relax the condition as to the number of years of experience required, even in the absence of rules, a total exemption from possessing 12 years' experience is totally unwarranted. Petitioner is only a post graduate in W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 14 Commerce. He does not have any experience in production of films or its direction or in any matter related to a studio. 16. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel and as can be seen from Ext.R2(b) recruitment rules, the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post is Diploma in Cinema (3 years) from a recognised institution and 8 years experience in the production of film etc. or graduate with 12 years' experience with production of film as Production Executive/Producer/Director with administrative experience. The recruitment rules do not provide for any exemption from experience. In the requisition submitted by the 2nd respondent, i.e Ext.R2(c) also, the qualification prescribed and intimated to the 1st respondent is the same as the one that is prescribed in Ext.R2(b) recruitment rules. However, in Ext.P1 notification there is a clause exempting the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community from having the qualification of experience stating that inservice training would be given to such candidates during the period of probation. No reasonable man would be able even to think that the 12 years' experience can be acquired by undergoing/ granting in-service training during the 2/3 year period of probation or that the training that would be given for a period of 2 or 3 years during W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 15 probation can be equated to the experience of 12 years in the field of film. It would appear that the Public Service Commission has granted this exemption in view of the general orders issued by the Government to relax the requirement of experience, without considering the number of years actually required in the present case or the nature of post. Even though there are rules and instructions directing several relaxations and concessions in favour of members Scheduled Caste community and there are general directions issued by the Government to exempt the candidates from the provisions regarding experience, I am of the view that to exempt the candidate from the prescription of 12 years' experience, is not called for by way of such relaxation or concession, in the circumstances of this case. 17. It is settled law, starting from the judgment in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors. [(1974) 3 SCC 220] onwards and reiterated in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra), Vijayakumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature, Patna (2016) 9 SCC 313, etc. that a candidate does not get any indefeasible right for appointment, by mere inclusion in the rank list. Even in cases where appointment is over, the Apex Court held that such appointment can be cancelled if the candidate is not qualified as per rules, even if he is qualified as per a notification, which is contrary to the W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 16 recruitment rules. Just because the PSC issued a notification which is contrary to the recruitment rules, the petitioner cannot insist that the 2nd respondent should be compelled to appoint him and the 1st respondent should advise him. (See State of Maharashtra v. Shashikant S Pujari & Ors.: (2006) 13 SCC 175] 18. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner, who is not having the prescribed qualification as per the recruitment rules, is not entitled to be advised or appointed to the post of Studio Manager. 19. The question whether the advice of a dead candidate is null and void or whether the vacancy requires to be treated as a fresh vacancy or existing vacancy, because of the death of the candidate even before advice and in the absence of an order of appointment, etc. does not require consideration in the above circumstances of the case. 20. Even though the petitioner submits that the respondents have been all along taking an attitude against the interest of the Scheduled Caste candidates and that the appointments were being delayed in order to protect the petitioner in writ petition No.20179 of 2014, who was included provisionally in the list I,1 find that the objection of the 2nd respondent is towards the relaxation of qualification by the PSC, when it was notified, W.P(C) No.17825 of 2017-C 17 based on which the List II was drawn and petitioner was included. 21. The contention raised by the 2nd respondent as to its liability to notify managerial posts including that of Studio Manager to PSC, in the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970 and the Rules thereof, is also left open, as a decision on that question is not called for in this case. 22. In view of the fact that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification, the petitioner does not deserve any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the rank list has already expired. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/ "