Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Appellant/petitioner responded to Ext.P1 notification for direct recruitment to the post of lecturer in Commerce. His application was rejected by the Public Service Commission as per Ext.P6 on the ground that he did not have the required qualification mentioned in Ext.P1 gazette notification including National Eligibility Test (NET). On the other hand, he is possessing only State Level Educational Test (SLET), the qualification issued by an agency outside the State. This was impugned unsuccessfully before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this appeal at his instance. 2. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment in Writ Petition (C) No.20406/2004 and connected cases to court out the appellant. Therefore this writ appeal. 3. Again the question to be considered by us is whether the appellant/writ petitioner possesses the required qualification in terms of the Special Rules or the notification. 4. The Special Rules relating to the post is that contained in Special Rules for the Kerala Collegiate Education Service issued in the year 1994. As per the said Rules, qualification for the post of lecturer is as follows:- 1) Masters degree in the concerned subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent and good academic record. 2) Must have passed a comprehensive test specifically conducted for the purpose by UGC or any agency duly constituted by the State Government in this behalf. When qualifications being equal, preference shall be given to candidates who possess adequate knowledge in Malayalam. 5. These are the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 as well. The appellant possesses the Masters Degree in the concerned subject. It is not disputed. 6. When the Special Rules prescribed Masters Degree, the rule making authority has consciously mentioned that it shall include its equivalent as well, providing so in the first limb of the qualification. 7. The second limb of the qualification is a comprehensive test “specifically conducted for the purpose by UGC or any agency duly constituted by the State Government”. The State Government means the Government of Kerala. Admittedly by the appellant/petitioner he has not passed the comprehensive test conducted by the UGC. According to him, the test that he has passed, as is revealed by Ext.P5, viz. State Level Educational Test conducted by Bharathidasan University is one declared equivalent as to that conducted by the G.G.C. 8. The State Government means the Government of Kerala. Admittedly by the appellant/petitioner he has not passed the comprehensive test conducted by the UGC. According to him, the test that he has passed, as is revealed by Ext.P5, viz. State Level Educational Test conducted by Bharathidasan University is one declared equivalent as to that conducted by the G.G.C. 8. Anyhow, though in the first limb of the qualification, the rule specifies equivalent qualification, in the matter of comprehensive test conducted by the U.G.C. the Rule Making Authority has not stipulated any equivalent qualification to that conducted by the U.G.C. On the other hand, the Rule making Authority has intended an alternate qualification which shall be a test conducted by “any agency duly constituted by the State Government”. 9. The appellant does not have a case before us that Bharathidasan University has been duly constituted by the Government of Kerala to conduct the test. Necessarily, the petitioner does not possess the second limb of the qualification mentioned in the rule or in the notification. 10. Invocation of Article 254 of the Constitution of India with reference to the relevant entries in the list (1) does not have any relevance in this regard because the regulation or stipulation of accreditation by the U.G.C. does not amount to a plenary legislation by the Parliament to contend that such regulation will prevail over the special rules for the post framed under the Kerala Public Service Act, 1961, a legislation enacted in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 11. Thus on any reason the appellant cannot be said to possess the qualification mentioned in the notification. So the stand of the Public Service Commission that his application was liable to be rejected on that ground is justified. 12. In such circumstances, the view taken by the learned Single Judge endorsing the stand of the Public Service Commission cannot be stated to be faulty to invite interference. 13. Writ appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly.