IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25638 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SUNITHA DEVI.S., AGED 38, D/O.P.G.SANKARA PANICKER,PULIKKAL PUTHANPURA HOUSE METHALA.P.O., KURUPPAMPADI, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESETNED BY CHAIRMAN. PIN-695001 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHNA HOSPTIAL BUILDING, ERNAKULAM-682011. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25638 OF 2010 (D) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the admission ticket issued to the petitioner by the PSC for certificate verification to the post of LD Typist in various departments. One of the qualification prescribed is Certificate in Word Processing or Certificate of having undergone a two months course in Computer Word Processing conducted by the Institutes, Societies or Universities under the control of the Central Government or State Government. By Ext.P4, she has been informed that she is not qualified, and therefore her name has not been included in the ranked list. It is challenging Ext.P4 and seeking a direction for her inclusion in the ranked list, the writ petition is filed. 2. The reason stated in Ext.P4 is that the certificate produced by the petitioner is one issued by the Rashtriya Computer Saksharatha Mission, a copy of which is Ext.P6 and PSC took the view that the same does not satisfy the qualification prescribed in Ext.P2. Although it is the case of the petitioner that what she has undergone is a superior course and that the WPC No. 25638/10 :2 : curriculum of which includes Computer Word Processing also, going by Ext.P2, the qualification possessed by the petitioner is not one satisfying the requirements of Clause 2(d) of Ext.P2. Therefore, the view taken by the PSC in Ext.P4 memo issued to the petitioner cannot be said to be faulted. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp