IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 424 of 2009(A) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. REHNA C.H., W/O. C.M. ABBAS, AGED 36 YEARS, PARAKKATTIL HOUSE, NAD P.O., NOCHIMA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RAMLA M.M., D/O.MARAKKAR, AGED 38 YEARS, THOMMAM HUSE, VADAKODU P.O., PUTHIYAROAD KANGARAPADY, ERNAKULAM. 3. DIKSY LASAR A.L, W/O. P.A.ROY, AGED 36 YEARS, PAPPALY HOUSE, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY G.P. SHRI P. NANDAKUMAR R2 & R3 BY SHRI ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 424 of 2009-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their applicationss for appointment to the post of L.D. Typist and Confidential Assistant Grade II in respect of Ernakulam District. They applied pursuant to the notification issued in respect of the above posts in Ernakulam District. 2. The petitioners are having Diploma in Commercial Practice (DCP) from Government Polytechnic, Kalamassery. The petitioners contend that going by the certificates they obtained as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2, the same satisfies the qualification prescribed in Ext.P4 notification issued by the Public Service Commission. 3. Going by Ext.P4, one of the qualification prescribed is Computer Word Processing. It is based on the same that, the petitioners applied for the post in question. In the written examination, they were successful also. Finally they were included in the short list. During verification of the certificates an objection was raised that they are not having the qualification regarding Computer Word Processing as prescribed in the notification. Ext.P5 and similar memos were issued to the candidates. Even though they Wpc 424/09 2 represented before the Commission to reconsider the matter, that was not accepted. 4. The petitioners have produced Ext.P7 judgment of a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.2413/2007 and connected matters. In the said judgment, after hearing both parties, this court held that those who have passed three year Diploma in Commercial Practice from 1992 revised scheme onwards are only entitled to participate in the interview. This was laid down after considering the case by the Government that such persons also will be considered as having qualification equivalent to the required qualification of Computer Word Processing as per the notification published. 5. Petitioners contend that those who have passed prior to 1992 like the petitioners have also undergone the course under the revised syllabus. The only difference was that the petitioners got instructions in COBAL (Computer Language) and Computer Applications for a period of three years which is equivalent to Computer Word Processing, whereas those who had done the 1992 revised syllabus studied Computer Word Processing as a separate subject. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore vehemently contended that there is no reason to exclude the petitioners. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the said plea raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted in the light of Wpc 424/09 3 the binding directions rendered by the Division Bench in Ext.P7 judgment. It is pointed out that this court in Ext.P7, arrived at a conclusion after accepting the stand taken by the Government that the syllabus was revised in 1992 and the diploma obtained by such persons could be treated as similar qualification. In the light of the findings rendered in Ext.P7 judgment, the contention raised by the petitioners that the candidates who have secured diploma prior to 1992 could be treated as having secured the relevant qualification, cannot be accepted. The stand taken by the Government which was accepted by this court evidences the fact that it is in 1992 the revised syllabus was adopted and those who have passed diploma under 1992 syllabus also will be considered as having secured the equivalent qualification in Computer Word Processing as per the notification. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the matter. The writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/