Judgment :- Petitioners 1 and 3 were non-Medical Supervisors in the Health Services Department. They had undergone training of Leprosy Health Visitor conducted by the Government of Kerala. Both of them retired after a period of 32 years service. On 18-6-94, the 2nd respondent District Leprosy Officer, Ernakulam invited applications for selection of Leprosy Inspectors under the Leprosy eradication scheme. The qualification prescribed for the post is pass in S.S.L.C., a certificate issued by the Government of Kerala in the work of Leprosy Programme and physical fitness. The age prescribed was between 35 and 40. Petitioners submitted application. The last date for submitting application was 15-7-1994. On 11-7-94, another notification was issued inviting applications for 5 different categories including Leprosy Inspector. In addition to Leprosy Inspector, vacancies of non-Medical Supervisors were also sought to be filled up and the qualification prescribed for the post of non-Medical Supervisors was 10 years experience in the field. Petitioners 1 and 3, who were qualified, applied for that post. It was specifically mentioned in the notification that if experienced persons in Leprosy control programme were not available, candidates with S.S.L.C. qualification will be selected and that they would be given six months' training. 2. A written test was held on 4-9-1994 and interview was followed on 22-10-94. The first petitioner was called for interview and the 3rd petitioner was not even called either for the test or for the interview. Petitioners allege that 4th respondent is the wife of a Peon attached to the office of the first respondent and she is aged only 24 and was not eligible to submit application. Petitioners also allege that the 5th respondent, who was also an applicant, is the wife of a driver attached to the office of the respondent and she was aged 32 at the lime of submitting application and, hence, she too was not qualified to be appointed. The 6th respondent was aged 25 and he too was not eligible to be appointed. As per Exts. P2 and P3 notifications persons below the age of 35 were incompetent to submit applications. 3. Petitioners alleged that the process of selection of candidates was bad and (lie respondents 1 and 2 selected candidates according to their whims and fancies. It is alleged that they did not either publish the names of persons to be included in the select list. 3. Petitioners alleged that the process of selection of candidates was bad and (lie respondents 1 and 2 selected candidates according to their whims and fancies. It is alleged that they did not either publish the names of persons to be included in the select list. Petitioners further allege that the selection of persons to the post of Leprosy Inspectors is illegal and malafide and hence liable to be set aside. 4. Subsequent to the filing of the O.P. several interested persons got themselves impleaded as respondents. They have filed counter affidavit denying the allegation in the O.P. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the notification inviting the application for the post of Leprosy Inspectors was put on in the notice board of the District Medical Officer on 14-6-94 and the meeting of the District Leprosy Society was held on 16th May, 1994. The last date for receipt of application was 16-7-94, but it was extended upto 30-7-94. The written test was conducted on 4-9-1994. Interview for the top ranking 65 candidates was held on 22nd October, 1994. The selection board consisted of District Collector, State Leprosy Officer and District Medical Officer. On behalf of the Collector, the nominee represented the Board. 43 candidates were selected on the basis of the results of the written test, out of which four are retired hands from the Leprosy Wing. The selected candidates joined duty on 1st November, 1994. The reasons for calling candidates below (he stipulated age of 35 - 40 years was based on the discussion at District Leprosy Officer's Conference held at Kozhikode on 7-7-94 under the Chairmanship of the State Leprosy Officer. Since the Multi Drug The Raphy (MDT) Programme being a time bound programme requiring active and energetic participation of the workers requiring to do field work and overtime work, it was thought that younger age group may be preferred man the older ones. The Government of India guidelines says that a minimum age of 35 years may be considered. Besides on evaluating the written test, the successful candidates were more in the younger age group and this was all done in the best interest of the project. The 4th respondent is the wife of one M.L. Ravi, who is a peon i n District Leprosy Office. Her date of birth is 21-4-1971. Besides on evaluating the written test, the successful candidates were more in the younger age group and this was all done in the best interest of the project. The 4th respondent is the wife of one M.L. Ravi, who is a peon i n District Leprosy Office. Her date of birth is 21-4-1971. She was elected on the basis of the discussions held at District Leprosy Officers Conference held at Kozhikode. The 6th respondent was selected on the basis of the discussions held at District Leprosy Officers conference held at Kozhikode. His date of birth is 1-6-1969. The 4th and 5Ih respondents were not given highest marks in the written test. The 5th respondent is the wife of V.T. Thilakcn, a driver of the District Medical Officer. It is not correct to say that they were in charge of cyclostating the question papers. The first petitioner was considered for interview and he is 7m rank in the waiting list. The third petitioners application was not in order, hence it was rejected. The list of candidates was published in the notice board. 5. I heard the petitioners' counsel and the Government Pleader. Ext. P2 is the notification issued for the selection of leprosy inspectors. There was a proposal to select 43 candidates and the monthly remuneration was a consolidated amount of Rs. 30007 -. As per the notification the applicant should be of the age group 35 - 40 years. The last date of submission of application was 15-7-94, and it was later extended to 30-7-94. But many of the candidates who have been selected are below the minimum age of 35 for which the explanation offered by the respondents 1 and 2 is that they wanted more young and energetic candidates. Therefore, they decided to consider applications of the persons below the age of 35. But it may be noticed that the decision to call candidates below the age of 35 was taken at a conference held at Kozhikode on 7-7-94. The last date for submitting application at that time was 15-7-94 and it was subsequently extended to 30-7-94. Respondents 1 and 2 had sufficient time to publish a revised notification calling for application from persons below 35 years. But that was not done by the authorities. Instead the Ext. The last date for submitting application at that time was 15-7-94 and it was subsequently extended to 30-7-94. Respondents 1 and 2 had sufficient time to publish a revised notification calling for application from persons below 35 years. But that was not done by the authorities. Instead the Ext. P2 notification stood as it is and the candidates who were not qualified in accordance with Ext, P'2 notification were considered for selection. This being a separate scheme and if the authorities thought it fit to select youngsters, the same should have been done in a proper and legal manner. They should have issued a fresh notification calling for applications even from persons below the age of 35 years and above the age of 18. Many of the aspirants for this post did not get an opportunity to submit the application as the age group prescribed was 35 to 40 in the notification. This has seriously affected the whole process of selection. 6. In a decision reported Mohammed Magbool Pandit v. Chariman, District Recruitment Board and others (1981) SLR 490) the learned Acting Chief Justice of the Jaimnu & Kashmir High Court held that where qualifications has been prescribed and duly notified in the advertisement inviting applications, the State cannot obliterate the same by appointing persons who do not possess the prescribed qualification as against those who possess that qualification it would be violation of the mandate of Art.16 of the Constitution. 7. In Kuldip Singh v. Slate of Punjab (1972 SLR 706) it was held: "No relaxation can be granted when an advertisement has been issued inviting applications and persons possessing the qualifications advertised are available and submit their applications. If a relaxation has to be allowed, the advertisement should be issued, again so that all eligible persons, in view of the relaxation to be allowed, should be able to apply for the job. Once the qualifications have appeared in the advertisement inviting applications, those qualifications cannot be changed and the selection has to be made out of the candidates possessing those qualifications."' 8. In a recent decision reported in Union of India and others v. an and Kumar Pandey and others (1994) 5 SCC 663) the Supreme Court held that when there is serious irregularity in the process of selection, fresh selection is to be made. In a recent decision reported in Union of India and others v. an and Kumar Pandey and others (1994) 5 SCC 663) the Supreme Court held that when there is serious irregularity in the process of selection, fresh selection is to be made. That was a case where the Railway Recruitment Board, Patna invited applications for selection and recruitment to various posts of non-technical popular categories in the Eastern, Railway. The selection was to be made as a result of written examination and a viva voce test. A large number of candidates including the respondents appeared in the written lest from various centres in the city of Kithara. All the respondents who sat for the written examination at Centre No. 115. They qualified in the written examination as well as in the viva voce test and their names were included in the panel of selected candidates which, was published. On a complaint of mass copying at Centre No. 115 the railway authorities conducted an inquiry and found the complaint to be correct. The inquiry report revealed that overall pass percentage in the written examination for all the centres at Kathihar was 0.6% whereas the pass percentage in two rooms at Centre No. 115 alone was 45.4% and two of the candidates, who had secured the highest marks in that centre, were found to have given "identical wrong and correct answers". In this back ground the railway authorities decided to subject 35 candidates, who had qualified written test from Centre No. 115, to a fresh examination. This decision was set aside by the Administrative Tribunal. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Administrative Tribunal and held: "To make sure that the deserving candidates are selected, the respondents have been asked to go through the process of written examination once again. Hence there is no violation of the rules of natural justice in any manner in the facts and circumstances of this case". 9. In the instant case, the authorities advertised mat the candidates should be of the age group of 35 to 40 but later relaxed this qualification. One of the selected candidates is closely related to a Peon who was asked to conduct the examination work. Another selected candidate also is a close relative of one of the employees in the office of the District Medical Officer. One of the selected candidates is closely related to a Peon who was asked to conduct the examination work. Another selected candidate also is a close relative of one of the employees in the office of the District Medical Officer. For all these reasons, I do not think that the process of selection was done in a fair manner. Had there been an advertisement to the effect that the candidates who have minimum age of 18 and maximum age of 40 would be eligible to apply, several other candidates would have come forward to appeal' for the examination. I am aware that the Leprosy Inspectors are selected for a particular scheme and in order to implement the scheme candidates must be urgently available for undergoing training. However, I am not inclined to accept the selection process. I quash the same and direct mat there shall be a fresh selection of Leprosy Inspectors. In view of the urgency of the situation, I direct respondents 1 and 2 to take urgent steps to select the candidates at an early date. One of the members of the selection committee shall be the District Collector. The District Collector, Ernakulam shall personally see that the selection of candidates is done in a proper and fair manner. The selection shall be done within the shortest possible time. O.P. is disposed of as stated above.