IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1580 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUNITHA N., KALLUPADATH, MANNANCHERRY, W/O. SAJIMON, RESIDING AT KAROTTUVELI, KALOOR P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, P AND ARD, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, K.P.S.C. DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. CHAIRMAN-CUM-DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE LITERACY MISSION, THYCADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. 6. THE DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR, DISTRICT LITERACY MISSION, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 7. THE CHAIRMAN, BLOCK PANCHAYATH SAKSHARATHA SAMITHI, ARYAD BLOCK PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN SC SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).1580/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for the post of Lower Division Typist in various departments in Thiruvananthapuram District as per the notification dated 31.12.2005. The qualifications prescribed for the said post are the following:- (i). S.S.L.C or its equivalent (ii). Lower Grade Certificate in K.G.T.E. Malayalam Typewriting. (iii). Lower Grade Certificate in K.G.T.E English Typewriting and Computer word processing or its equivalent (G.O.(P) No.19/04 P & ARD dated 8.12.04) (iv). Those who have passed K.G.T.E Typewriting before January, 2002 should produce separate Certificate in computer word processing or its equivalent. There is no dispute that the petitioner has passed W.P.(C).1580/2008 2 K.G.T.E Malayalam Typewriting and K.G.T.E English typewriting (Lower). Dispute is only whether the petitioner has also acquired a qualification in Computer word processing in its equivalent. Petitioner refers to Ext.P2(d) which is the certificate dated 16.10.2002, evidencing the fact that she had attended a DTP course conducted by the Block Panchayat of the Saksharatha Samithi, under the State Literacy Mission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Ext.P11 clarification issued by the PSC, they had declared that certain courses offered by certain institutions will be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification of course in Computer Word Processing. Petitioner had approached this Court earlier challenging the rejection memo issued by the PSC. Petitioner’s claim was rejected as evidenced by Ext.P13 judgment. It was also noted therein that the petitioner had not independently challenged Ext.P11 clarification issued by the PSC. W.P.(C).1580/2008 3 Petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.2825/2007 against Ext.P13 judgment. Same was disposed of under Ext.P15 judgment, directing the PSC to consider “Annexures-A1 and A2, Ext.P6, P6(a) and P10” and to take a decision whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to that of Computer Word processing. Petitioner produced the aforementioned documents before the PSC. PSC considered the petitioner’s claim and rejected it under Ext.P17 holding that the course in DTP offered by the Block Panchayat of the Saksharatha Samithi is not equivalent qualification as declared by the PSC. Therefore, they are unable to accept the same. Ext.P17 is under challenge in this writ petition. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. W.P.(C).1580/2008 4 From a perusal of the writ petition, I also find that the petitioner has challenged Ext.P11 which is the clarification issued by the PSC. In so far as the challenge against Ext.P11 is concerned, I am of the view that the petitioner’s claim in that regard is misconceived. Admittedly petitioner does not possess the prescribed qualification. Petitioner can have a case only if she possesses a qualification which is equivalent. It is only under Ext.P11 that certain qualifications have been declared as equivalent to the prescribed qualification, by the PSC. If the petitioner's challenge against Ext.P11 is accepted, petitioner also loses a chance of contending that she possesses a qualification which could be considered as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. Moreover, several persons who might have been benefited from Ext.P11 clarification are not parties to the present writ petition. Once Ext.P11 is treated as valid, further question is W.P.(C).1580/2008 5 whether the petitioner possesses the qualification which can be considered as equivalent to that of the prescribed qualification. Certificate relied on in this regard by the petitioner is Ext.P2(d), which shows that she has completed a course in Desk Top Printing offered by the Aryad Block Panchayath. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P14 to show that the syllabus of the course offered by the District Literacy Mission would include M.S.Word, and Computer fundamentals. This therefore, must be treated as a qualification which is considered as equivalent to that of the prescribed qualification, it is contended. This Court will be reluctant to undertake any exercise which will include a subjective verification of whether a course offered by an institution or an agency is similar in content to that contained in the prescribed qualification. PSC, in exercise of its powers had issued a clarification enumerating certain institutions, the courses offered by which are treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. Unfortunately for the petitioner a course W.P.(C).1580/2008 6 in Desk Top Printing offered by the Saksharatha Mission is not one of the enumerated items in Ext.P11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions in Ext.P15 judgment was to the PSC to consider the documents of the petitioner and to take a decision whether the qualification possessed by the appellant (petitioner) is equivalent to that of Computer Word Processing. He submits that a perusal of Ext.P17 will show that the said aspect has not been correctly understood or appreciated by the PSC. I am not in a position to accept the same. Ext.P17 will show that PSC considered the certificate produced by the petitioner and also noted that a course in DTP offered by the Literacy Mission is not one of the qualifications treated as equivalent, in the clarification issued by the PSC. Therefore, PSC expressed its disinclination to accept the said certificate and treat it as a sufficient qualification. Essentially PSC went by the list of enumerated qualifications treated as equivalent to the W.P.(C).1580/2008 7 prescribed qualification. They considered the course undertaken by the petitioner and found that it is not one of the enumerated courses. I am not in a position to accept the submission that there is inadequate compliance of the directions in Ext.P15 judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.T.Devin katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others (1990 (3) SCC 157) to contend her position that there is a vested right available to the petitioner to be considered in terms of the qualification prescribed as per the rules, in terms of the advertisement inviting applications. It is true that the assessment of the qualification must be with reference to the prescription contained in the notification. But in the present case, PSC had, even in Ext.P1 notification reserved unto itself a power to treat certain qualifications as equivalent. It is accordingly that Ext.P11 was issued. In fact earlier declaration W.P.(C).1580/2008 8 made by the PSC on 15.12.2006 was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.12356/2007 and upheld. The same principle would apply in the case of Ext.P11 also. Moreover, as noted by me, the plea of the petitioner to consider her case is rested on the continued existence of Ext.P11 and therefore, challenge against Ext.P11 at the instance of the petitioner is misconceived. For all these reasons, writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs