IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 6898 of 2007(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. M.N.SAJEEVAN, S/O.M.K.NAMBI, MENILAKATH HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O., PANAMKULAM VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ASHLY THOMAS, S/O.T.T.THOMAS, THAYATH HOUSE, ATTULLIL MARIYAMTHARAPARAMBU, ETTUKADU TEMPLE ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI. 3. P.P.SALAM, S/O.P.A.PAREETHU, THAIVELIKKAKATHU HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI. 4. M.K.RAJAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, MULLASSERY HOUSE, MANKARA DESOM, ENKAKAD P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRINTING (GOVERNMENT PRESSES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED W.P.(C). NO. 6898/2007-U * ADDL. R4: SRI.BIJU.A., S/O.A.M.ARAVINDAKSHAN, BIJU NIVAS, NEDUVANNOOR, CHOVARA POST, ALUVA POST, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST. * ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/06/2007 IN I.A.8497/07. ** ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED ADDL. R5: AGILE.C.M., OFFSET PRINTING MACHINE OPERATOR GR.II, GOVERNMENT PRESS, KAKKANAD. ** ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/02/08 IN I.A.2078/2008. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2, R3 ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR ADDL. R4 ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 6899 OF 2007, THE COURT ON 30/09/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 6898/2007-U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SHORT LIST SHOWING THE EREGISTER NUMBER OF THE CANDIDATES. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3(b): COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3(c): COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P3(d): COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY NATIONAL APPRENTICE SHIP CERTIFICATE IN LETTER PRESS MACHINE MINDER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NATIONAL APPRENTICE SHIP CERTIFICATE IN LITHO OFFSET MACHINE MINDER OBTAINED BY PETITIONER NO.2. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP CERTIFICATE IN LITHO OFFSET MACHINE MINDER OBTAINED BY PETITIONER NO.3. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP CERTIFICATE IN LITHO OFFSET MACHINE MINDER OBTAINED BY PETITIONER NO.4. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.7/90 DATED 09/04/1990. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15/04/2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, KORATTY UNDER THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY ALLEVIATION. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 24/03/2004. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15/12/2005 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15/12/2005. ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15/12/2005 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15/12/2005 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. (P.T.O) W.P.(C). NO. 6898/2007-U EXT.P15: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/12/2005 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/12/2005 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/12/2005 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/12/2005 FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P19: COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES IN WHICH THE ALLEGED DEFECTS ARE CURED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P20: COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES IN WHICH THE ALLEGED DEFECTS ARE CURED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P21: COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES IN WHICH THE ALLEGED DEFECTS ARE CURED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P22: COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES IN WHICH THE ALLEGED DEFECTS ARE CURED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P23: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 19/01/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 543 OF 2006. EXT.P24: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/03/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 31049 OF 2005. EXT.P25: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE TRAINING MANUEL. EXT.P26: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/09/2006. EXT.P27: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/01/2007 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE PSC. EXT.P28: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/09/2006. EXT.P29: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/01/2007 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE PSC. EXT.P30: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/09/2006. EXT.P31: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/01/2007 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE PSC. EXT.P32: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/09/2006. EXT.P33: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/01/2007 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE PSC. (P.T.O.) W.P.(C). NO. 6898/2007-U EXT.P34: COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF PLATE MAKER GR.II IN PRINTING DEPARTMENT. EXT.P35: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06/11/1995. EXT.P36: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 03/08/1998. EXT.P37: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01/01/2002. EXT.P38: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 31/12/2004. EXT.P39: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13/04/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NOs.6898 & 6899 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners in these two writ petitions challenge their exclusion from the same rank list published by the PSC. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to the facts in WPC.No.6898/2007 in the first instance. 2. The petitioners responded to Ext.P1 notification issued by the PSC for selection to the post of Offset Printing Machine Operator Grade II in the Printing (Government Presses) Department. The qualification prescribed in this regard is as follows:- 1. SSLC 2. DPT/LPT (Offset) and one year experience in Printing Automatic single Colour sheet Machine from a reputed firm. or MGTE/KGTE Printing (Higher) and three years experience in Offset Printing Machine from a reputed firm. WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 2 3. After the selection the PSC published a short list consisting of 93 candidates in the main list and 37 candidates in the supplementary list. The petitioners appeared for the interview. When they were intimated of some defects in the experience certificate produced by them, according to them, they cured the same. But later when PSC published the rank list, it was found that the petitioners were not included in the rank list. On enquiries it was found that they do not possess the prescribed qualification. This was later affirmed in Exts.P11 to P14 show cause notices issued to the petitioners. The reason stated in Exts.P11 to P14 (except for the difference between Letter Press Machine Man and Litho Offset Machine Man) is that the qualification possessed by the petitioners viz. National Apprenticeship Certificate is not sufficient in terms of the notification. Objections were filed by the petitioners to the proposal contained in the show cause notices. They were heard and ultimately by Exts.P27, P29 ,P31 and P33 they were intimated that the qualifications possessed by the petitioners viz. National Apprenticeship Certificate - Letter Press Machine Minder Certificate is not a qualification in terms of the notification nor is WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 3 it equivalent to Diploma in Printing Tehcnology. Exts.P27, P29, P31 and P33 have been challenged in these writ petitions. Certain consequential reliefs have been sought for by the petitioners. 4. The PSC has filed a counter affidavit essentially contending that the applications of the petitioners were rejected since their qualification NAC (National Apprenticeship Certificate) – Litho Offset Machine Minder is not equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the post. It is further contended that to be considered as alternative qualification for KGTE/MGTE (Higher), NAC must have been obtained in 11 trade groups as is mentioned in Ext.P8 Government oder. The qualification possessed by the petitioners is in one group only and therefore the same cannot be accepted. 5. The petitioners have taken out notice by paper publication. 6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Sri. Alexander Thomas, learned counsel for the PSC and Sri.Nandakumar, learned senior Government Pleader on behalf of the Government and Sri. P.C.Sasidharan , who WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 4 appeared for certain persons already included in the rank list and who got themselves impleaded pursuant to the paper publication taken out by the petitioners . 7. The main issue which arises for consideration is whether qualification possessed by the petitioners as evidenced by Exts.P4 to P7 viz. National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) can be treated as sufficient in terms of the notification. Ext.P4 to P7 are the certificates relating to the petitioners. Ext.P7 shows that the certificate holder received apprenticeship training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 in the trade in Litho Offset Machine Minder ( L.O.M.M.) and passed the prescribed trade test conducted by the National Council for Vocational Training. The petitioners placed heavy reliance on Ext.P8 Government Order GO(P) No.7/90/P &ARD dated 9.4.1990. The said GO reads as follows:- “ In the G.O. read above, it was ordered that the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Printing will be accepted as an alternative qualification to Kerala Government Technical Examination Certificate (Higher) in Printing. Government are now pleased to clarify, in consultation with the Kerala Public WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 5 Service Commission, that the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Printing with the following Trade Groups will be accepted as an alternative qualification to KGTE Certificate (Higher) in Printing:- 1. Compositor Hands 2. Mono Operator 3. Lino Operator 4. Mono Caster 5. Letter Press Machine Man 6. Retoucher Lithographer 7. Engraver 8. Book Binder 9. Process Cameraman 10.Plate Maker 11.Litho Offset Machineman 8. It is contended that the petitioners have passed the prescribed trade test either in Letter Press Machine Minder or Litho Offset Machine Minder and therefore in terms of Ext.P8 Government order this could be accepted as alternative qualification to KGTE Certificate (Higher) in Printing. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Ext.P8 Government Order is one issued well prior to the date of the WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 6 notification and the Government has obviously issued the said order in consultation with the PSC. KGTE (Higher) in Printing is the alternative qualification prescribed for the four posts even as per the notification. Ext.P8 Government Order directs that the NAC with 11 trade groups be treated as an alternative qualification for KGTE (Higher) Printing, and the petitioners are entitled to be treated as sufficiently qualified in terms of the notification. 9. Objection taken by the PSC is to the effect that the qualification NAC ( National Apprenticeship Certificate)- Litho Offset Machine Minder is not equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the post. According to the Public Service Commission, even as per Ext.P8 Government Order, NAC with 11 trade groups together will be accepted as an alternative qualification for KGTE (Higher) but the qualification possessed by the petitioners is in one group only. 10. Admittedly, Ext.P8 Government Order declares that the NAC in the 11 trade groups mentioned therein is eligible to be treated as an alternative qualification for KGTE (Higher) in Printing . Obviously the competence of the Government to issue WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 7 an order in the nature of Ext.P8 is neither doubted nor is capable of being disputed. I am afraid I am unable to accept the submission made by Sri. Alexander Thomas. Ext.P8 Government order contemplates that NAC in all the 11 enumerated trade groups together is required for a person to be treated as having acquired the qualification alternative to that of KGTE (Higher) in printing. Each one of them is treated as a separate trade group as evidenced from Ext.P8. It is difficult to contemplate a situation where a person undergoes the prescribed training in 11 trade groups and then takes the prescribed test in all the 11 trade groups to obtain a certificate from the NAC. At any rate no such inference is capable of being drawn by a plain reading of Ext.P8 GO. On a plain reading of Ext.P8 GO what is directed to be treated as an alternative qualification to KGTE (Higher) in Printing is NAC in any one of the trade groups which are specifically enumerated therein. The absence of the word “together “ succeeding the words “following trade groups” in my view, is clearly inconsistent with the interpretation sought to be placed by the PSC, on Ext.P8 as such. 11. The second aspect highlighted by the PSC in their WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 8 rejection memos is that Ext.P8 describes the trade group as Letter Press Machine Man and Litho Offset Machine Man as two trade groups prescribed by the NAC. If it is contended that in the instant case, certificate produced by the petitioner shows him as having obtained NAC in trade group Letter Press Machine man or Litho Offset Machine Minder. I do not think there is any distinction as such between Letter Press Machine Man or Letter Press Machine Minder as the case may be. At any rate, the matter is put beyond doubt by Ext.P9 clarification issued by the Government of India Press Koratty. Even otherwise Machine man and Machine Minder essentially signifies the same. 12. For all these reason I am of the view that the stand taken by the PSC to the effect that the petitioners do not possess the prescribed technical qualification for the post of Offset Printing Machine Operator as prescribed in Ext.P8 notification is untenable and unsustainable. The petitioners do possess the qualification which is equivalent to alternative qualification prescribed in the notification in terms of Ext.P8 Government Order and are eligible to be treated as qualified for the said post. In so far as 4th petitioner is concerned there is an additional WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 9 contention that one of the experience certificates produced by him shows an overlapping of the period during which he had acquired experience and therefore his experience certificate cannot be accepted as such. In my view this aspect has been sufficiently explained by the 4th petitioner. It is contended by him that there is an overlapping of one month in Exts.P35 and P36. It so happened because during October,1995 the 4th petitioner had worked for 15 days in Shiv Durga Press and for another 15 days in Printers Castle. Therefore the month of October 1995 is shown in Ext.P35 and P36 by both the aforesaid printing presses . Later in Exts.P38 and P39 certificates the defects pointed out in Exts.P36 and P37 have been cured. It is not a case where any additional details are given in these certificates Exts.P38 and P39. It is a case where a defect pointed out by the PSC in relation to the two certificates produced by the 4th petitioner, as a discrepancy in the earlier certificates were clarified by the petitioner by means of Ext.P38 and P39 certificates. I do not find any specific reference to Ext.P38 and P39 in the counter affidavit justifying as such the rejection of these two certificates. WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 10 13. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be treated as adequately qualified experience for the post of Offset Printing Machine Operator Grade-II in the Printing (Government Presses) department in terms of Ext.P1 notification. It is so declared. Exts.P27,P29,P31 and P33 are quashed. The PSC shall take steps to include the petitioners in appropriate places in Ext.P34 rank list. They are entitled to be advised by operation of the rank list, if their turn arises. WPC.6898/2007 is allowed. WPC.No.6899/2007 14. There is dispute in this case as regards the technical qualification possessed by the petitioners. The dispute is essentially with regard to the experience certificate produced by the petitioners. As regards the first petitioner it is contended that going by the certificate produced by him he had been working in two different firms during the same period viz. 1.7.1994 to 31.5.1997 and 1.7.1997 onwards in another firm. The explanation given by the petitioner in this regard is that the reason stated by the PSC in Ext.P9 rejection memo relating to the first petitioner stems from a misconception . Reference is made WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 11 to Ext.P10 certificate issued in favour of the first petitioner by one Pioneer Offset certifying that the first petitioner was working in their firm from 31.7.1994 to 31.5.1997. Referring to the defect pointed out by the PSC regarding the overlapping of a period, Ext.P11 certificate issued by Pioneer Offer is produced wherein the author of Ext.P10 has clarified that instead of 31.7.1994, 1.7.1994 has been wrongly mentioned in Ext.P10 certificate. I do not find any reference to Ext.P11 in the counter affidavit filed by the PSC. 15. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, the reason stated in Ext.P13 rejection memo relating to him that the name of the person who has issued experience certificate in his favour is that the nature of the duty discharged by him, in the course of acquiring the experience relied on by him has not been mentioned. The experience certificate produced by the second petitioner, Ext.P6 is to the effect that the second petitioner was working in Minerva Press, Trivandrum as Offset Printer – Plate Maker (in HMT Automatic Single Colour Sheet Fed Offset Machine). Apparently, ExtP14 and P15 certificates were later produced to show that the petitioner was a regular employee in WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 12 Minerva Press during the period mentioned in Ext.P6. 16. I do not find any reference to Exts.P14 and P15 in the counter affidavit filed by the PSC. In so far as the third petitioner is concerned the specific objection taken in relation to him by the PSC is that the name of the issuing authority was not recorded in his experience certificate. According to the petitioner, Ext.P17 certificate was produced at the time of his interview after curing the defect. Ext.P7 was the first certificate produced by the third petitioner and essentially the contents of Exs.P7 and P17 are the same. The difference is that the name of the person who has issued the certificate on behalf of M/s. Navakerala Printers is also shown in Ext.P17. I do not find any specific dispute raised as regards Ext.P17 in the counter affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission. 17. On an over all appreciation of the above mentioned factors, I am of the view that the defects pointed out by the PSC as regards the experience certificates of the petitioners ought to be treated as curable defects and apparently, they had made legitimate attempt to cure the defects also. I am of the view that at any rate, reason stated by the PSC in the rejection memo WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 13 issued in favour of the petitioners are neither tenable nor sustainable. I take note of the fact that there is no serious dispute as regards the fundamental factor that the petitioners have the requisite experience. Though there is an allegation that the certificates are unacceptable and in the case of one of the petitioners there is also a suggestion that the certificates are taken bogus, it is not the case of the PSC that the experience certificate produced by the petitioners are completely unacceptable. The mistake in the certificates have been explained by the petitioners. The reason given, in so far as the second petitioner is that the nature of duty has not been sufficiently explained, does not seem to be tenable. The defect pointed out in relation to the 3rd petitioner was a minor defect and later it was cured and the same was brought to the notice of the PSC also. 18. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be treated as qualified and experienced for the post of Offset Printer Machine Operator Grade-II and their removal from the short list and non inclusion in the final rank list is neither justified nor sustainable. WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 14 19. WPC.No.6899/2007 is allowed. Exts.P9,P13 and P16 are quashed . The PSC is directed to include the petitioners name in Ext.P18 rank list. They shall be advised when their turn arises. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 15 20. On pronouncement of the judgment, Mr.Alexander Thomas makes a submission to the effect that this court may clarify that the advice that may be made in relation to the petitioners, based on their placement in the rank list, may not affect the advice already effected by the Public Service Commission. 21. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj also on this aspect. I think, the submission made by Mr.Alexander Thomas is to be accepted. 22. Accordingly, it is clarified that the persons, who have already been advised from the rank list should not be disturbed, for the purpose of accommodating the petitioners, except where there are no vacancies available to accommodate the petitioners and the Public Service Commission finds that they are otherwise eligible to be included in the rank list and their position, had they been otherwise included, would have resulted in they being advised much earlier. In other words, if there are vacancies, which could accommodate the petitioners currently available or which may become available and which are reported before the expiry of the rank list, then the implementation of the WPC.Nos.6898 & 6899/2007 16 directions issued in this judgment, should not result in disturbance of the persons, who are advised by the Public Service Commission. In the circumstances, the appointing authority, shall, forthwith, report all available vacancies in the post in question within one week from today. V.GIRI, JUDGE.