IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 2943 of 2007(E) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29609/2007 Dated 19/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. M.K.SMITHA, D/O. M.K.VELAYUDHAN, MULLANKUNNUMMEL, KAKKUR, NANMINDA. 2. NAZAR S., S/O. SULAIMANKUNHU, CHELAPPALIL HOUSE, VALIYAKULANGARA, OACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. ANILKUMAR P.K., S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, ANIL NIVAS, PAVANDOOR P.O., NANMINDA (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,SC KPSC G.P. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2943 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT Gopinathan, J. Appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.29609/2007. The first respondent by Ext.P1 notification dated 31.12.2005 invited application for the post of Typist. The qualifications prescribed are: 1. SSLC or equivalent. 2. Malayalam Typewriting Lower Grade Certificate(KGTE) 3. English Typewriting Lower (KGTE) 4. Computer Word Processing or equivalent Certificate. Note: The candidates who have passed KGTE Typewriting before 1st January, 2002 should produce Computer Word Processing or equivalent certificate. First appellant had obtained a certificate on Windows Package issued from Jan Shikshan Sansthan. First appellant did not respond to Ext.P1 notification as she was not aware whether the certificate held by her would come within the equivalent qualification prescribed in the W.A. 2943/2007 2 notification. The other appellants had obtained the certificate only after the last date of application, i.e. on 15.2.2006. According to the appellants, first respondent, on 15.12.2006 issued Ext.P3 clarification whereby the establishment from where the first appellant had acquired her certificate was also included in the category of establishments competent to issue the equivalent certificate and thereby the first appellant had equivalent qualification as on the date of notification. Since Ext.P3 was issued long after the last date for receiving the application, first appellant could not apply for the same. It is irregular, unjust and illegal whereby the right of the first appellant was lost. Therefore, the appellants sought for quashing Ext.P1 notification. 2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the appellants assailed the notification only on 1.10.2007. It was also noticed that the respondents had reserved their powers to declare equivalent qualification and that Ext.P3 was within their powers. Consequently Writ Petition was dismissed. Now this Writ Appeal. 3. We have heard Sri.S.Sujin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the documents. Going by Ext.P3, we see that Ext.P3 is only a clarification of an order dated 9.5.2005, limiting the establishment competent to issue certificates which can be treated as W.A. 2943/2007 3 equivalent certificate referred to in the notification dated 9.5.2005. Ext.P3 was issued to a query by a candidate. It is not at all a new notification adding new institution so as to get a cause for the appellant to assail Ext.P1. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the establishment from where the first appellant had obtained the certificate would come within the purview of notification dated 9.5.2005 referred in Ext.P3. In this view of the matter, we find that even long before the date of Ext.P1 notification, the equivalent qualification mentioned therein was clarified. Ext.P3 is not at all a further clarification but is only a notification limiting the establishment mentioned in the notification dated 9.5.2005. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal. Adding to that as mentioned by the learned Single Judge, the Writ Petition itself is highly belated. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge True copy pms P.S. to Judge