IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 24469 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RUGMANI.K., W/O.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 31 YEARS, PULIKKALTHARA HOUSE, VALLANGI, NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR, DISTRICT LITERACY MISSION OFFICE, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT POLY TECHNIC, PALAKKAD - 678 551. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.24469/2008-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an applicant to the post of Lower Division Typist (Various) as per the notification published by the Kerala Public Service Commission, dated 13/12/2005, in Palakkad District. The following qualifications were prescribed:- a. S.S.L.C or its equivalent. b. Malayalam Typewriting Lower Grade Certificate (K.G.T.E) c. English Typewriting Lower Grade Certificate (K.G.T.E), Certificate of Computer Word Processing or its equivalent. She was issued with an admission ticket for the written test based on O.M.R valuation to he held on 12/08/2006. Ext.P5 is the copy of the admission ticket. According to her, she came out successful in the written test and was ranked 7th in the short list published by the K.P.S.C on 04/01/2007. Thereafter, she submitted the necessary certificates before the K.P.S.C. 2. It appears that her name has been deleted from the list for want of the required qualification in Computer Word Processing. The petitioner at the time of submitting the application admittedly produced Ext.P2 certificate. According to the petitioner, she has also produced Ext.P4 W.P.(C) No.24469/2008 -:2:- certificate dated 22/12/2006, issued by the Board of Technical Examinations in support of the acquisition of the relevant qualification. 3. The question is whether Ext.P2 certificate issued by the District Literacy Mission and, Ext.P4 certificate procured after the issuance of the notification on 22/12/2006, i.e., after the last date fixed for receipt of the applications, could be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by the various judgments, especially, the judgment W.P.(C).No.17873/2008, Ext.P2 certificate should have been accepted. 4. It is true that in W.P.(C).17873/2008 a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Commission to verify whether the computer course conducted by the State Literacy Mission Authority and that conducted by the District Literacy Mission are of similar nature and, whether the certificate issued by the District Literacy Mission could be accepted. The learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission pointed out that the above judgment stands set aside by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1992/2008. The Division Bench in a series of writ appeals, W.A.Nos.240, 456, 743, 1052, and 1306/2008, considered the competency of the P.S.C to publish notification showing the equivalent qualification. It was also held that the P.S.C has got power under Rule 13 W.P.(C) No.24469/2008 -:3:- (b) Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules to decide and accept the equivalent qualification to computer word processing and further observed that it was for the P.S.C to decide what is equivalent. A reading of the judgment shows that the P.S.C by an order dated 30/07/2007 also published list of institutions from where certificates showing equivalent qualification could be obtained. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the notification published by the P.S.C regarding the equivalent qualification recognised by it, was admittedly issued at a later point of time, than the date of notification. Therefore, the stand taken that Ext.P4 certificate cannot be accepted, is not correct. It was submitted that apart from Ext.P2, P4 will justify that the petitioner has got sufficient qualification for the post in question. 6. The above contention cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed counter affidavit. Going by the judgment of the Division Bench, the notification published by the P.S.C showing the equivalent qualification was found correct. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend for the position that as long as the notification was published only at a later point of time, the respondents W.P.(C) No.24469/2008 -:4:- cannot rely upon the same to reject the certificate produced by the petitioner. Apart from that in the writ petition there is no direct challenge against the said notification of the P.S.C. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot argue that the said notification cannot be considered at all. Therefore, the notification providing equivalent qualification will apply to her also. If that be so, the certificate issued by the District Literacy Mission is not one recognised as an equivalent qualification. The petitioner cannot, therefore, succeed. What remains to be considered is Ext.P4. It is dated 22/12/2006. The notification here is dated 31/12/2005. Therefore, evidently, she has not acquired the qualification on the date of notification, which is the relevant date on which the candidate should have the necessary qualification. The Commission also found that, the said certificate also will not satisfy the equivalent qualification prescribed by them. It is accordingly her name was deleted. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms