IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 2413 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27992/2007 dated 4/10/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU T.M., MULLASSERILL HOUSE, OOPPOOTTIL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-1. 2. KARTHIKA K.R., KOTHANATHU HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. BINCY B., NAMBUKATTIL, KONTTU ROAD, NORTH GATE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 4. BINOJ B., THAMARAVELIL HOUSE, ULLALA, THALYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. PREETHA T.GOPAL, VALLIARACHIRA, VECHOOR P.O., EDAYAZHAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 6. BINDU T.D., NANDANAM, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 7. BINDU MOL T.S., THAKADIPUTHAPARAMBA, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY-686 105. 8. NISHA BALAN K., MUNDANAMTHUNDATHIL, KOTHANALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. Kss ..2/- ...2..... W.A.NO.2413/2007 9. BEENA N.F., KOTTAVILA VEEDU, NEAR SURENDRA BHAVAN, KOTTARAKARA P.O., KOLLAM-695 506. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (RULES) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVACIS – R1& R5 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC- R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008 ALONG WITH WA NO. 2414 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.Nos.2413, 2414, 2445, 2493, 2500 of 2007, 531 of 2008, W.P.(C)Nos.29205 of 2007, 1226, 12314 and 16119 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 15th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . By Ext.P5 notification dated 31.12.05 in W.P.(C)No.1226 of 2008, the Public Service Commission invited applications for appointment to the post of Confidential Assistant Grade II in various departments. The last date for the receipt of the applications prescribed therein was 15.02.2006. With regard to the `Lower Division Typist' as well as `Confidential Assistant' posts, one of the requirement was that the applicants should posses “Lower Grade Certificate in Typewriting English (KGTE) and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent”. In Ext.P5 notification it is not mentioned what the equivalent qualifications are, but, it is specifically stated that equivalent qualification will be accepted. The petitioners in these cases have passed Diploma in Commercial Practice. According to them, that is an equivalent qualification to Computer Word Processing. If it is not stated in the notification that equivalent qualification will be accepted, the Public Service Commission can accept only the qualification mentioned in the notification, but, here, in the notification itself it is stated that equivalent W.A.2413/2007 & Connected cases 2 qualification will be accepted. In Shobha Menon v. Public Service Commission it was held that if it is not mentioned that equivalent qualification will be accepted, P.S.C cannot subsequently treat any other qualification as equivalent as it will be a fraud on the public as many applicants possessing the equivalent qualification would have failed to apply. But, if it is mentioned that equivalent qualification will be accepted, candidates who feel that they have the equivalent qualification could have applied and it is for the P.S.C. to consider whether it is an equivalent qualification or not in view of Rule 13(b)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. Here, several applications were filed by candidates claiming to have equivalent qualification. The Public Service Commission published another notification detailing the equivalent qualifications. Even before publishing the same, by Annexure 7 in W.A.No.2413 of 2007, Diploma in Commercial Practice was considered to be an equivalent qualification subject to approval by the Government and candidates with the above qualification were provisionally permitted to appear for the examination subject to final orders from the Government. By Ext.R2(a) in W.A.No.2413 of 2007 dated 16.09.2006 Government passed an order stating that Diploma in Commercial Practice obtained after 1997 revised syllabus will be treated as equivalent to KGTE certificate in Computer Word Processing. Later, on a representation W.A.2413/2007 & Connected cases 3 by one Asha (writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12314 of 2008), petitioners who have passed as per the previous syllabus which was existing in 1996 were also allowed to write examination as can be seen from Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.12314 of 2008. Later, the Government noticed that the syllabus was revised from 1992 and the Computer Word Processing was a compulsory subject for passing the Diploma in Commercial Practice and, therefore, the Government accepted that those who have passed the Diploma taking 1992 syllabus also will be considered as having qualification equivalent to the required qualification of Computer Word Processing as per Ext.P5 notification. In the above circumstances, those petitioners who have passed Diploma in Commercial Practice after 1992 revised syllabus or subsequent revised schemes mentioned in two Government Orders, Ext.P12 in W.P.(C)No.12314 of 2008 are eligible to be advised. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the P.S.C that the petitioners in W.A.No.2445 of 2007 passed the Diploma in Commercial Practice before the revised syllabus, 1992 came into force. Only those who have passed three year Diploma in Commercial Practice from 1992 revised scheme onwards are only entitled to participate in the interview. It is submitted that some of the persons were already advised to the post of L.D. Typist. We make it clear that the seniority of existing advised candidates need not be altered. But, further W.A.2413/2007 & Connected cases 4 advice shall be made only after considering the claims of qualified candidates. It is submitted that few candidates were not called for dictation test to the post of Confidential Assistants, even though they have already passed the written test and shortlisted. Those who have got equivalent qualifications as mentioned in this judgment also should be called for dictation test. All the writ appeals and writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks