IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5488 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- BIJU.O.P,NEELAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.VISHNUMANGALAM,KALLACHI VIA,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY SECRETARY,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,REP.BY REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY,THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. ANITHA.S,REGISTER NO.111669 IN CATEGORY NO.245/07,C/O.SECRETARY,PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.5488/2010 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION. P2(A): COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF B.COM DEGREE FROM UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P2(B): COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE SECOND YEAR OF B.COM DEGREE FROM UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P2(C): COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE FINAL YEAR OF B.COM DEGREE FROM UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P2(D): COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE FINAL YEAR OF B.COM DEGREE FROM UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P3: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 5/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SHORT LISTING THE CANDIDATES. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 12/05/2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5(A): COPY OF THE B.COM DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P5(B): COPY OF THE B.COM DEGREE HALL TICKET FOR THE FINAL YEAR EXAMINATION. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 6/08/2009. P7: COPY OF THE PROFORMA FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND RETURNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST. P9: COPY OF THE REQUET SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.7/01/2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 5/02/10. P11: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY DTD. 15/02/2010 AND THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SYLLABUS. P12: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SYLLABUS OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. P13: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SYLLABUS OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COST AND MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ PA. TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5488 of 2010 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of LD Accountant in the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited. The petitioner applied in response to Ext.P1 notification. He was called for written test and was included in the short list. He had produced certificates for verification, and thereafter he was issued Ext.P6 requiring him to produce community certificate, which also he did. Ext.P8 is the final ranked list. In that ranked list, he was excluded. When the petitioner made a request under the provisions of the Right to Information Act for disclosure of the reason for his exclusion from the ranked list, he was informed by Ext.P10 that he did not have the prescribed qualification. It is thereupon that the writ petition has been filed challenging his exclusion from the ranked list. 2. In the counter affidavit filed, the reason stated by the PSC to justify the exclusion of the petitioner is that on perusal of the mark lists of the B.Com degree examination produced by the WP(C) No.5488/2010 -2- petitioner, it was seen that the petitioner had not studied 'Auditing' as a special subject. 3. It is seen from Ext.P1 notification that B.Com with Special Accounts and Auditing as special subjects was the qualification prescribed. According to the petitioner, although in Ext.P2(c) B.Com final year mark list, the subject 'Auditing' was not separately shown, he did study 'Auditing' as a part of the subject, Financial Management. In support of this contention, he relies on Ext.P11, copy of the syllabus issued by the University. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that he was fully qualified and his exclusion from the ranked list is illegal. It is also his contention that, if at all, the PSC had a case that the certificates produced by the petitioner were insufficient, at least, when Ext.P6 intimation was issued to him to produce a fresh community certificate he ought to have been intimated of the same, in which event, he would have produced materials substantiating his eligibility to be considered for the post. 4. Evidently, the exclusion of the petitioner from the ranked list was on the ground that he did not have the prescribed qualification for the post, in as much as according to the PSC, the petitioner has not studied 'Auditing' as a special subject. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that as part of the subject WP(C) No.5488/2010 -3- Financial Management, he has studied a separate paper of Auditing and this contention of the petitioner is sought to be substantiated relying on Ext.P11. In my view, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case and the contentions put forward by the petitioner, it is only appropriate that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to substantiate his claim before the 1st respondent. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to make a representation to the 1st respondent producing documents he has relied on to substantiate his eligibility in terms of Ext.P1 notification, in which event, it is directed that the 1st respondent will consider the claim duly adverting to the materials produced and decide as to whether the petitioner satisfies the eligibility laid down in Ext.P1 notification. It is directed that if the petitioner files a representation as above within two weeks from today, the same will be considered and orders thereon will be passed by the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. Needless to say that the outcome of this exercise will not affect any advice that is already made by the PSC. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg