JUDGMENT V. Khalid, J. 1. My innate sense of justice dissuades me from dismissing this petition on a rigid interpretation of Ext. P3. I feel that the qualification prescribed under Ext. P3 should be considered in a reasonable manner so that it advances justice and not defeat it. 2. The petitioner is at present working as a Police Constable, he was appointed with effect from 31st July 1978. He had to undergo Basic Police Training for a period of 9 months in the Police Training College and thereafter 6 months Practical Training in Local Police Station. The petitioner successfully completed the training on 7th May 1979 and was placed on probation. The petitioner will complete the period of probation by 8th May 1981. 3. Though the petitioner was advised by the Employment Exchange for appointment as Police Constable he was not deputed for training along with the constables selected with him. On enquiry he found that there was some controversy about the qualification prescribed for a person to be appointed as Police Constable. The petitioner submitted Ext. P2 representation dated 5th May 1978. Ext. P3 dated 9th September 1976 prescribes the qualifications for persons to be appointed as Police Constables. According to the petitioner he satisfies Ext. P3. Ext. P4 is produced to show that he completed the S.S.L.C. Course and was even allotted the Hall Ticket. However he was told that he would be discharged for want of qualification and was served with Ext. P6 discharging him from service with immediate effect. He moved this court as per O. P. No. 3959 of 1979-D to quash Ext. P6 order. Ext. P7 judgment followed by which Ext. P6 was quashed and the Government was directed to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner if they so chose. Thereafter the petitioner was served with Ext. P8 show cause notice to which the petitioner submitted Ext. P9, explanation which resulted in Ext. P10 discharge order. Ext. P10 is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Ext. P3 lays down the qualifications for a police constable. It reads thus: "The Gore Committee on Police Training has recommended that High School examination, or its equivalent may be prescribed as minimum educational qualification for recruitment to the post of Police Constables in all branches. P10 discharge order. Ext. P10 is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Ext. P3 lays down the qualifications for a police constable. It reads thus: "The Gore Committee on Police Training has recommended that High School examination, or its equivalent may be prescribed as minimum educational qualification for recruitment to the post of Police Constables in all branches. Likewise the committee on estimates (1973-74) in their 16th report have also recommended to revise the educational qualifications as S.S.L.C. Government have examined the recommendation in all its aspects. They also examined in these context the question of giving certain concessions to the constabulary and they are pleased to issue the following orders:- 1. Minimum educational qualification for recruitment to the Constabulary (Local Police, Armed Reserved, Armed Police, Battalion) will be S.S.L.C. standard, i.e., study upto that standard (whether passed or failed) instead of the present one 'study upto VII Class Malayalam or Old Form III'. In the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidates the present educational qualifications will continue to be in force. (emphasis supplied) x x x x x x x x x x x x" Ext. P3 was in existence when the petitioner was selected which meant that at the time of his appointment the authorities felt that he satisfied the requisite qualification. This is evident also from Para.2 and 3 of the counter affidavit, which reads: "2. As per G.O. Ms. 119/76/Home, dated 9th September 1976 (Marked as Ext. P3), the educational qualification for the recruitment of Police Constables was 'S.S.L.C. standard i.e., studied upto that standard (whether passed or failed)'. During the recruitment of Police Constables in Kottayam District in 1978 petitioner was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It was seen that he had not appeared for the S.S.L.C. Examination but had only been presented for that examination. A doubt therefore arose whether he can be selected for the post. Government at first clarified on 20th July 1978 that if a candidate had completed the course by minimum attendance he will be deemed to have attained S.S.L.C. standard. Government subsequently examined the matter further in detail and directed the Inspector General of Police on 3rd November 1979 to terminate the training of the petitioner and discharge him forthwith. By that time petitioner completed the training. Government subsequently examined the matter further in detail and directed the Inspector General of Police on 3rd November 1979 to terminate the training of the petitioner and discharge him forthwith. By that time petitioner completed the training. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam by his Order No. A2-6329/78K, dated 9th November 1979 discharged the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Petitioner did not accept this order but entered on sick leave from 9th November 1979 onwards and filed this O.P. 3. It is true that a doubt arose whether the petitioner who has only been presented for the S.S.L.C. Examination but did not appear for that examination can be selected for the post of Police Constable Petitioner's representation, dated 5th May 1978 (Ext. P2) was also considered by Government and it was clarified that if a candidate had completed the course by attaining minimum attendance he will be deemed to have attained S.S.L.C. standard." From the above averments in the counter affidavit it is clear that at sometime there was doubt as to whether a person who was only presented for the S.S.L.C. Examination could be appointed as a Police Constable. On 20th July 1978 government clarified that a minimum attendance and a completion of course were sufficient. It was on subsequent examination that it was found that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. 5. I do not have before me any order that came into being subsequent to Ext. P3 by which the position had been further clarified. As already stated, Ext. P3 was in force when the petitioner was appointed. From Ext. P4 it is seen that the petitioner had appeared for the S.S.L.C. Examination in 1975 March. The petitioner has stated in Para.4 of the O.P. as follows: "The petitioner states that he had completed the S.S.L.C. course and he remitted the requisite fees for appearing for the examination in 1975 March and he was issued Hall Ticket, his Registration No. being 17839. A true extract of the register kept in the St. Berckaman's High School, Changanacherry, showing that the petitioner completed the S.S.L.C. Course and appeared for the S.S.L.C. Examination is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P4." The averments in the petition that he appeared for the examination and that he was issued a Hall Ticket are not denied in the counter affidavit. Berckaman's High School, Changanacherry, showing that the petitioner completed the S.S.L.C. Course and appeared for the S.S.L.C. Examination is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P4." The averments in the petition that he appeared for the examination and that he was issued a Hall Ticket are not denied in the counter affidavit. The question for consideration therefore is whether the petitioner should be denied his job on the technical construction that the Government seeks to put on Ext. P3. An illustration will lay bare the inequity and unreasonableness if such a construction is adopted. A person like the petitioner who does everything to appear for the examination but could not write the examination will be disqualified if the construction sought to be put by the Government is accepted; while a person who sits for the examination and submits blank answer papers for all the subjects will be presumed to be qualified for the reason that he will be treated as 'failed' in the examination. It is for this reason that I feel that a liberal construction has to be put on the word 'failed' a construction consistent with the object manifest ia Ext. P3. Ext. P3 contains the expression "i.e., study upto that standard." What is therefore intended is completion of the course. It is to make the intention clearer that the words "whether passed or failed" are put in the brackets. This again means that a pass in the S.S.L.C. is not intended to be made obligatory. Ext. P3 made it clear that the words 'studied upto that standard' should not be understood to mean completing the 9th standard only because of the use of words 'upto that standard', the person should have completed the course in the S.S.L.C. standard and should have the necessary attendance. It is immaterial if such a person passes or fails. So construed the word 'failed' should be related to a person who has completed the course, put in necessary attendance and had either failed in the examination or did not sit for the examination but nevertheless was entitled to be presented for the examination. Sitting for the examination is not a necessary requisite. So construed the word 'failed' should be related to a person who has completed the course, put in necessary attendance and had either failed in the examination or did not sit for the examination but nevertheless was entitled to be presented for the examination. Sitting for the examination is not a necessary requisite. It is keeping this in view that I opened this judgment saying that it will be negation of justice to deny to the petitioner the benefit of his job for the pure accident of his not having sat for the examination, after all what was necessary to sit for the examination was done. This in my view is the proper construction to be put to Ext. P3. The stand of the respondents in this matter, according to me, is equivocal and is not conclusive or beyond doubt. The fact that the petitioner was appointed in 1978 when Ext. P3 was in existence; the fact that the petitioner was allowed to complete his training and the fact that he was even put on probation, clearly shows that, at all relevant times, the authorities felt that the petitioner answered to the requirements of Ext. P3 and possessed the requisite qualification to be appointed as a Police Constable. The subsequent developments unsubstantiated by any document cannot outweight the considerations mentioned above. I do not pause to consider the averments in the petition about mala fides and political influence used against the petitioner and his family since they are not substantiated. 6. On a reasonable reading of Ext. P3, I am of the view that the interpretation given by the respondents to the word 'failed' is not correct. Persons like the petitioner who satisfy that they had done everything to entitle them for presentation for the examination will also come within the expression 'failed'. On this view I hold that Ext. P10 has to be quashed. I quash Ext. P10 and allow this petition. No costs.