IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3208 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDRALEKHA.N,D/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, BLOCK NO.320,KALLAR.P.O,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695019. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,DISTRICT OFFICE,IDUKKI,KATTAPPANA, PIN-642530. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORS (RULES)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 3208 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an applicant before the Public Service Commission for selection to the post of L.D. Typist pursuant to Ext.P1 notification inviting applications. The essential qualifications prescribed for the post are the following; “1. SSLC or its equivalent. 2. Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting. 3. Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent (G.O. (P) No.19/04/P&ARD dated 08.12.2004). Note:- Those who have passed KGTE Typewriting before January 2002 should produce separate certificate in Computer Word Processing or its equivalent. “ 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner passed KGTE typewriting in 1993 and, therefore, the petitioner produced Ext.P6 certificate obtained from an institution conducting courses in “Word Processing”, which, according to the petitioner, is sufficient qualification as per the notification itself. But the petitioner has not been considered for selection apparently on the basis that Ext.P6 certificate is not acceptable to the PSC. The petitioner submits that the petitioner although submitted a representation in this regard, the same has not been received by the PSC. For the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if the PSC considers the claim of the petitioner and w.p.c.3208/11 2 passes a considered order in the matter. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC opposes the same. According to him, Ext.P6 is not an acceptable certificate insofar as the same is not issued by any recognised institution. 4. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: If the petitioner files a representation in this regard before the 1st respondent within two weeks, the 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the same. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge