IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 339 of 2009(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHITRA P.R. CHITHRALAYAM T.C.20/198 MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY S.C. SHRI ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2009-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of her application for the post of L.D. Typist in various departments as per Ext.P2, by the Public Service Commission. The application was rejected for the reason that the certificate produced to prove that the certificate produced to show that she has the necessary qualification in Computer Word Processing, is not acceptable. 2. According to the petitioner, going by Ext.P3 certificate issued by the LBS Centre for Science and Technology, she is qualified. The certificate shows that she has successfully completed a part-time course on MS Office with practical training conducted by the LBS Centre. The petitioner is also relying on a circular issued by the Public Service Commission, viz. Ext.P4 wherein the certificate issued by the LBS Centre for Science and Technology has been accepted as sufficient to show equivalent qualification. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had completed a course stretching over a period of three months and even though in the certificate it is shown as completed within a period of two WPC 339/2009 2 months, going by Ext.P6 certificate issued by the LBS Centre, it could be seen that the course was conducted by them by spending more number of hours for completion, as they had to shorten the duration for other reasons. The same is relied upon by the petitioner to show that actually she has acquired the qualification which is equivalent to the one prescribed by the Public Service Commission. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission submitted that the very same issue was considered by this court in W.P.(C) No.12374/2008 and it was held that when it is insisted that the course should be for a period of not less than three months, the said requirement cannot be diluted or cannot be claimed to be otherwise satisfied by referring to the number of hours which had been spent. In the said case the course was conducted by the Regional Centre of IHRDE, Calicut between 13.8.1992 to 9.10.1992. A contention was raised that even though the course was only for a period of two months, that had been conducted after availing more hours for completion of the course and actually it should be treated as equivalent to a course stretching over a period of three months. After considering various aspects, it has been held in para 7 that “once, therefore, the equivalent qualification is prescribed and the duration of the course is made part of the said equivalent qualification, candidate cannot claim to satisfy the requirements otherwise than in accordance with the conditions in the notification itself. It may be a case where actually the WPC 339/2009 3 candidate has spent more number of hours, in a course which otherwise may have a duration of three months. But the question is whether PSC can consider itself obliged to look into those different aspects relatable to one of the courses and then decide that the requirements are satisfied in one particular case and therefore, candidate must be treated as qualified. I am not in a position to find that PSC is obliged to do so; if a prescription of three months is incorporated as part of the notification declaring certain qualifications as equivalent, then PSC is entitled to insist fulfillment of three requirements.” 4. This position stands affirmed by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1967/2008. In that view of the matter, I respectfully follow the dictum laid down by the Bench in the Writ Appeal. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is also similar. Obviously the course conducted is only for two months, i.e. from 26.5.1999 to 17.7.1999. That is evident from Ext.P3 certificate. That cannot be treated as a course conducted for a period of three months which is prescribed in Ext.P4. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in rejecting the application. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/