IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2011/18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21614 of 2011 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- AHAMMEDALI.K.K., S/O. MUHAMMAD MUSLIAR, KEEDAKKAD HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM WEST.P.O., A.R. NAGAR MALAPPURAM-676305. BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mns APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE PSC DATED 11.7.2008 WITH RELEVANT PAGES. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.8.2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED 25.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE PSC EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.8.2011 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF APPRENTICE ACT, 1961. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 21614 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. He responded to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. After a written test, a short list was prepared. The name of the petitioner figured in the said short list. Thereafter, he was called upon as per Ext.P2 notice to produce the work experience certificate for verification. Ext.P3 experience certificate issued to the petitioner from the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation was then, produced. The contention of the petitioner is that, later, he was required to produce an experience certificate in the prescribed proforma and thereafter, Ext.P5 was also produced. Later, he has produced Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is described as an equivalency Certificate. This writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to accept Exts. P5 and P6 as valid certificates of experience and to include the petitioner in the ranked list of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The further prayer is for issuance WPC No.21614/2011 2 of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent not to reject the petitioners candidature on the ground of non production of experience certificate. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission. Admittedly, the petitioner has produced Ext.P3 experience certificate issued from the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation which is an undertaking of the Government of Kerala. In Ext.P3 the certification is to the effect that the petitioner had worked in the said institution as Apprentice Trainee(Heavy and Light Vehicles) for a period of one year from 25.3.1998 to 24.3.1999. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequently, he was asked to produce experience certificate in the prescribed proforma and pursuant to that he produced Exts.P5 and P6. In Ext.P5 certificate of experience, it is certified that the petitioner had worked in the institution as Mechanical(Apprentice) for a period of one year from 25.3.1998 to 24.3.1999. Ext.P6 is another certificate issued by the same institution under the caption 'equivalency certificate'. It is certified that the Apprenticeship Mechanic (Heavy and Light vehicles) done by the petitioner may be WPC No.21614/2011 3 considered as regular work experience from 25.3.1989 to 24.3.1999 as Mechanic(Apprentice). As already noticed hereinbefore, the prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the respondent to treat Exts.P5 and P6 as certificates of experiences. 3. The learned counsel for the Commission brought to my notice the provisions under Rule 10(ab) of Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. It reads thus:- “Where the Special Rules or Recruitment Rules for a post in any service prescribe qualification of experience, it shall, unless otherwise specified, be one gained by persons on temporary or regular appointment in capacities other than paid or unpaid apprentices, trainees and Casual Labourers in Central or State Government Service or in Public Sector Undertaking or Registered Private Sector Undertaking, after acquiring the basic qualification prescribed for the post” In view of the aforesaid provisions it is contended that Ext.P3 cannot be constrained as a work experience certificate. In Ext.P3 it has been specifically stated that the petitioner had worked in the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation as Apprentice Trainee(Technical) on Rs.1160/- per month. True that the petitioner has subsequently produced Exts.P5 and P6. In Ext.P5 also the certification was to the fact that the petitioner had worked in the said institution as Mechanic (Apprentice) during the aforementioned period. Therefore, WPC No.21614/2011 4 experience gained by the petitioner as is obvious from Ext.P3 and P5 is only as an apprentice going by the said certificates. In view of the specific provisions under Rule 10(ab) of Part II KS&SSR the said experience gained by the petitioner as an apprentice cannot be construed as an experience for the purpose of appointment to the post in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P6 assumes relevance. As per Ext.P6 the very same authority who issued Exts.P3 and P5 certificates certified to the effect that the experience gained by the petitioner as Mechanic may be considered as having gained on regular basis. When the same authority at the time of issuance of Ext.P3 and still later at the time of issuance of Ext.P5 in specific terms made it clear that the petitioner had gained experience only as an apprentice, it is not known as to how the very same authority could issue a certificate, at the later point of time, for treating the very same experience as experience gained on regular basis. As already noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P6 is styled as an equivalency certificate. There is nothing on record to show that the said authority who issued Ext.P6 is competent to declare a particular qualification as equivalent to some other WPC No.21614/2011 5 qualification. A careful scrutiny would further show that in fact, it was not actually an equivalency certificate. It is only stated therein that the experience gained by the petitioner during the period covered by Ext.P5 may be considered as an experience gained on regular basis. Having issued Exts.P3 and P5 specifically stating that the petitioner had gained experience only as an apprentice the same authority cannot issue such a different certificate. I am of the considered view that in such circumstances this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to treat Exts.P5 and P6 are valid certificates of experience especially, in the light of Rule 10(ab) of Part II KS&SSR. 4. Yet, another contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the definition of 'apprentice' under the Apprentice ship Act, 1961. It reads thus:- “2. Definition..... (aa) “apprentice” means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship;” The definition of 'apprenticeship training' also assumes relevance in context of the case and it reads thus:- WPC No.21614/2011 6 (aaa) “apprenticeship training” means a course of training in any industry or establishment undergone in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different for different categories of apprentices;” The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the definition of apprentice given in the Apprentice Act in the absence of contract of apprenticeship a person cannot be described as an apprentice and therefore, the earlier description of petitioner as apprentice would fade into inconsequence and therefore, Ext.P6 is to be acted upon. I am of the view that when the same authority had already issued Ext.P3 as early as on 29.12.2010 and Ext.P5 on 1.8.2011 making it specifically clear that the petitioner had worked only as apprenticeship trainee in the undertaking concerned there was no reason for justification for issuing Ext.P6. The petitioner has not brought to my attention any relevant provision of law which authorises the said authority to grant any equivalency certificate, I am unable to accept the contention that Ext.P6 is to be treated as a valid certificate. The petitioner has no case that during the period in question he was paid salary in the scale of pay attached to a regular post under the said undertaking. Admittedly, during the WPC No.21614/2011 7 period in question he was paid only a considered amount of Rs.1160/-. In the circumstances, the attempt of the petitioner to support Ext.P6 relying on the definition 'apprentice' also cannot and will not save the situation for the petitioner. In the light of Exts.P3 and P5, Ext.P6 cannot be given any validity at all. In the light of the said certificates the petitioner is not justified in relying on the provisions under the Apprenticeship Act to contend that the experience gained by the petitioner during the period from 25.3.1998 to 24.3.1999 in the absence of contract of Apprenticeship shall be treated as an experience gained on regular basis to qualify him for the purpose of consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, I cannot countenance with the said contention. The post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector is a post having onerous duties to perform. Hence, in the absence of conclusive proof of experience evidenced by proper certificates issued by competent authority one cannot be included in the ranked list treating him as qualified. In the circumstances, the petitioner who had worked in the aforesaid institution only an apprentice as is discernible from the documents produced by the petitioner himself, I am of the WPC No.21614/2011 8 view that this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge