IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2298 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MAYA B.NAIR, SANTHA SADANAM, ANICKADU P.O., PALLICKATHODU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.JOSE. V.V. 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, MUTTABALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).802/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C). 2298,2643,3532,802,2664,2926,2445,3593 & 4452 of 2008 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in all these writ petitions. On consent of parties, the writ petitions were taken up for hearing and they have been heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. Counter affidavits have been filed by the PSC in some cases. Copies of the same have been served on the counsel appearing in the other cases with an adoption memo. W.P.(C)s.3532/2008, 2643/2008 and 2926/2008 have been referred to for the purpose of referring to the documents which have been placed on record. PSC by a notification dated 31.12.2005, (Ext.P1 in W.P.(C).3532/2008), invited applications for the post of L.D.Typist in various departments. Qualifications prescribed for the post are as follows:- Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent. W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 2 The controversy in these cases is centred around the last among the qualifications, ie, Computer Word Processing or its equivalent. By Ext.P17 order dated 15.12.2006, PSC declared that the courses with duration of not less than three months conducted by Central/State Government Departments, Government Agencies, Government Societies or Universities and a certificate in Computer Word Processing issued there upon, will be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in terms of Rule 13(b) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. By Ext.P18 communication dated 30.7.2007, further expatiation was made by the Commission, by enumerating certain institutions as competent to offer the courses, which are eligible to be treated as equivalent qualification by the PSC for the post in question. 13 institutions are enumerated therein. LBS Centre for Science and Technology and IHRDE are two of the enumerated institutions. Apparently, both these are recognised by the Government of Kerala. They are treated as Government of Kerala undertaking. Clause 2 of Ext.P18 states that the certificates issued by the W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 3 enumerated institutions will be accepted as sufficient qualification only if they have a course duration of not less than three months. Petitioners participated in the written test and subsequently they were included in the short list and when they were called for the interview they had produced the certificates evidencing the qualifications possessed by them. The qualification relating to Computer Word Processing in the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3532/2008 is evidenced by Exts.P4 and P8. Apparently, PSC took the stand that though the courses undergone by the petitioners are from a recognised institution, forming one of the enumerated institutions in Ext.P18, nevertheless the course is a part time one and therefore, the qualification cannot be treated as an equivalent qualification in terms of Exts.P17 and P18. This is a stand which is common to all the writ petitions. Another common feature in all these cases is that the petitioners have participated in the course which is offered by LBS or by IHRDE. In all these cases certificates also show that the course undergone by the W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 4 respective petitioners is a part time course. Reference will also have to be made in this regard to a further certificate issued by the Director of IHRDE and Assistant Director of LBS certifying that, in the case of LBS, the syllabus of the courses enumerated therein, will include topics in Computer Word Processing, theory and practical (Ext.P13 in W.P.(C).2664/2008), and in the case of IHRDE, the Joint Director or in one case, the Director, went on to certify that the short term course on Word Processing, Electronic Typewriting and Data Entry Techniques was designed by IHRDE to conduct the same within a duration of 90 to 100 hours spread over a period of three months (Ext.P7 in W.P.(C). 2643/2008). The case urged is that the petitioners in these writ petitions have undergone a course in either Computer Word Processing or certain allied courses which included a topic in Computer Word Processing as well and that the course duration was not less than three months. Thus going by the institution which has offered the W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 5 course and also going by the duration of the course successfully completed by the petitioners, they satisfied the requirement in the order issued by the PSC on 15.12.2006 under Rule 13(b) and the subsequent clarification issued on 30.7.2007. I also consider it appropriate to refer in this context to a communication which was issued by the Secretary of the PSC to the District Officers, on 29.6.2006 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C).802/2008). Apparently, this was intended to intimate the District Offices that candidates possessing the following qualifications may also be treated as eligible to participate in the examination to be conducted by the PSC for the post of L.D.Typist in various departments. (i).Diploma in Commercial practice by the Board of Technical Examination. (ii).PGDCA by the Board of Technical Examination. W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 6 (iii).Diploma in Computer applications issued by the LBS. (iv). Certificate issued by the LBS in Data Entry and Office Automation. (v). National Trade certificate in Data preparation and Computer Software. (vi). Certificate issued by the LBS in Data Entry and Software. (vii). Secretarial practice in the Government Commercial institute. Obviously, when a clarification is issued by the Commission on 30.7.2007, as to the enumerated institutions, they must have taken into account the communication dated 29.6.2006 as well. The question for consideration, which arises as a common issue in all these cases is whether the course which is undergone by the petitioners either in Computer Word Processing or in allied course, should necessarily be a full time course, or whether a part time W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 7 course would also be sufficient for the purpose of the notification in question. PSC in their counter affidavit have taken a specific stand that going by the order issued by the Commission under Rule 13(b) of Part-II of K.S & S.S.R and the subsequent clarification issued on 30.7.2007 as also the further communication issued by the Commission on 11.9.2007, it is clear that only a full time course was in the contemplation of the Commission when it declared certain qualifications as equivalent. The short question is whether it is so. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the description as contained in the order issued by the Commission under Rule 13(b) will have to be treated as conclusive. It is contended that all that is mentioned therein is that the candidate must have completed a course having duration of not less than three months conducted by the Central/State Government Departments, Agencies, Societies and Universities and should have been issued a certificate for the said course W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 8 in Computer Word Processing. What is crucial therein is that the course must have been offered by the institutions which are accredited or recognized by the Government or by Governmental agencies as such. What is further crucial is that the course must have had a minimum duration of three months. So also when Ext.P8 communication was issued on 30.7.2007, reference is made to the enumerated institutions including LBS and IHRDE. Reference is also made to the duration of the courses as requiring a minimum of three months. There is no reference to the nature of the course being either part time or full time even in the clarification dated 30.7.2007. Learned Standing Counsel, Mr.Alexander Thomas, on the other hand contends that where the Commission had issued an order under Rule 13(b) declaring certain qualifications as equivalent and had also mentioned that the course duration must not be less than three months, the intention is clear, that the course must have been a regular course and not a part time course. W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 9 I have considered the wording in the order issued by the PSC under Rule 13(b). Subsequent clarification issued on 30.7.2007 should be considered in conjunction with the order under Rule 13(b). There is no inconsistency between the two. What is apparently discernible there from are two major features. Firstly, the course must have been offered by either a Government Department or a Society or an Agency which is accredited to a Government Department or otherwise treated as Government undertaking. Certificates produced by the petitioners in all these cases admittedly satisfy this requirement. Second aspect is that the course undergone by the applicant must have had a duration of not less than three months. I think it is significant that the Commission did not specify that the course must also be a regular course as distinguished from a part time course, in their order issued under Rule 13(b) or in the subsequent clarification issued on 30.7.2007. I also think it is worthwhile to presume that the Commission had before it the Course content of all the institutions and the courses offered by them and it is thereafter, that they chose to declare that the equivalent W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 10 qualification must be that which is offered by certain enumerated institutions. Obviously, it was competent for the Commission to include a further stipulation that the course should not only have a duration of not less than three months but should also be a regular course and not a part time course. No such stipulation is discernible from the order under Rule 13(b) or subsequent communication dated 30.7.2007. If that be so, I do not think it appropriate to infer an additional condition, over and above what is expressly enumerated under Rule 13(b). Mr.Alexander Thomas contends that the view taken by the PSC that the course undertaken by the candidate must have been a full time course as distinguished from a part time course, is a plausible view and this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of the Commission. As a matter of law, this argument is impeccable but it is to be noted that the challenge to the action taken by the Commission is not on the ground of competence of the Commission to declare a W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 11 qualification as equivalent under Rule 13(b), but on the ground that the rejection of the application of the petitioners is unwarranted even going by the order issued by the Commission under Rule 13(b) read with its own clarification issued on 30.7.2007. In other words, the question is whether the rejection of the petitioners' application is illegal in the context of the stand adopted by the Commission itself while exercising power under Rule 13(b) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion, that the stand taken by the Commission that the part time course offered by the institutions enumerated in clarification dated 30.7.2007 should not be treated as sufficient for the purpose of equivalent qualification, is not justified, warranted or sustainable. Consequently the said action is liable to be interfered with. Mr.Alexander Thomas refers to a subsequent communication issued by the PSC on 11.9.2007, which to an extent is a verbatim re-production of the communication dated 30.7.2007. The Commission also issued a caveat in the communication dated 11.9.2007 to W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 12 the effect that all those courses and qualifications which are enumerated therein should have been acquired after successful completion of the course of a duration of not less than three months otherwise than on an hourly basis. He submits that except a course which is offered on a regular basis, all the other courses will have to be treated as on hourly basis. Consequently part time course cannot be accepted. But I find it difficult to accept this for more than one reason. Firstly, though Commission is obviously having the power of clarifying any aspect which is covered by its order issued under Rule 13(b) of the General Rules, such clarification cannot be inconsistent with what is expressly provided for in the order. As I had noted above, the order issued under Rule 13(b) refers to only two major features. One is the nature of the institution which offers a course and the other is the duration of the course. Third element as a condition as such is not contemplated therein. In that view, the condition in Ext.P11 in Writ Petition No.2643/2008 will have to be read as subject to the order issued under Rule 13(b). Since the order under Rule 13 (b) does not specifically exclude a part time course, I W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 13 deem it appropriate and reasonable to construe that the stipulation contained in Ext.P11 has not excluded the part time course as such. The second aspect in this regard is the fact that Ext.P11 in W.P.(C).2643/2008 has been issued after conduct of the examination, in all these cases. No doubt clarification issued on 30.7.2007 would also be subsequent to the examination. But as I have mentioned above, the stand taken by the PSC will have to be judged with reference to its own order issued under Rule 13(b) and not with reference to any subsequent clarification or a communication issued by the PSC. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel also. In the light of the above, writ petitions are allowed in part. It is declared that non inclusion of the petitioners in the rank list on the ground that the course undertaken by them in Computer Word Processing or allied qualifications is a part time course is illegal and unsustainable. PSC shall consider the certificates W.P.(C)s.2298/2008 and Connected Cases 14 relatable to each one of these petitioners afresh without reference to the question as to whether the course is part time course or not, in the light of the observations made above. Petitioners shall be included in the rank list either by issuance of a revised rank list or by an addendum notification assigning them the due place in the rank list. Needful shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs