IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4665 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. INDUMOL.V., D/O.VASU, VAKKINICHALLA, KUTTIPALLAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD 678 101. 2. K.M.BAPITHA, KALLINGAL HOUSE, ATHIRKKAD P.O., GANDHI SEVA SADAN, PERUR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 302. 3. PREMEEELA.K.V., D/O.K.K.VIJAYAN, KALATHIL (H), ATHIRIKKAD, G.S.SADAN, P.O.679 302. 4. JAYANTHI.S, 12/439, KAVALAPPARA, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD 678 101. 5. SURABHYA.P, PALATTUKUALMBU (HOUSE), ERINKUNNAM P.O., COYALMANNAM VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 702. 6. KAVITHA.K., PURANDIYIL HOUSE, MANGALOOR, THENKURISSI II, PALAKKAD 678 502. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PALAKKAD. 3. KERALA STATE LITERACY MISSION AUTHORITY, TC 24/1862, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4. DISTRICT LITERACY MISSION, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PALAKKAD -1, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR. WP(C).No. 4665 of 2008 -2- 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).2176/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s. 2176/2008 & 4665/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in these cases. Therefore, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Reference is made to Writ Petition No.4665/2008, which is taken as the leading case. 2. Petitioners applied for the post of L.D.Typist in Various Departments pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the PSC. One of the qualifications prescribed for the said post is Computer Word Processing or its equivalent. According to the petitioners, they had attended classes for obtaining certificate of Diploma in Computer Application issued by the District Literacy Mission, Palakkad, conducted by the District Panchayat, Palakkad, as part of the Kerala State Literacy Continuing Education Programme. Exts.P4 to P9 are the certificates issued in this regard. Reference is made to Ext.P10 communication issued to one of the petitioners by the W.P.(C)s.2176 & 4665/2008 2 District Project Co-ordinator, District Literacy Mission, District Unit of Kerala State Literacy Mission Authority, under the Ministry of Education, Government of Kerala. 3. Petitioners were found to be not suitably qualified essentially on the basis that the certificate in Computer Word Processing relied on by them have been issued by the District Literacy Mission Authority and not by the State Literacy Mission authority. It may be mentioned in this context that though in the original notification, Computer Word Processing as such is mentioned as prescribed qualification, PSC had found itself having the power to declare certain qualifications as equivalent. Thereafter, the equivalent qualifications were declared, as per clause 21 of Ext.P13. It is made clear therein that the certificates issued by the Kerala State Literacy Mission are accepted and, thereafter, under the same item, there is an exclusion as regards the certificate issued as part of the Central/District Literacy Mission Projects. Petitioners have challenged Ext.P13 to the W.P.(C)s.2176 & 4665/2008 3 extent to which the certificates issued by the District Literacy Mission Authority are excluded from the purview of an equivalent qualification. One of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners is for a declaration that the above clauses are illegal. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the PSC, a specific contention has been taken by the PSC consciously deciding to exclude the certificates issued by the District Literacy Mission Authority from the purview of item 21 as listed in Ext.P13 and that the Commission, while deciding to accept the certificates issued by the State Literacy Mission Authority as adequate, had decided to exclude the certificates issued by the Central/District Literacy Mission Authority therefrom. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. 6. No doubt, the decision taken by the PSC, not to W.P.(C)s.2176 & 4665/2008 4 treat the petitioners as qualified is in consonance with Ext.P13. But as I noted above, the challenge against Item 21 in Ext.P13 is only to the extent mentioned above. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced before me a certificate issued to one of the candidates, who has been treated as qualified by the PSC, as mentioned in their counter affidavit. On a perusal of the said certificate, I find that it bears the logo of Kerala State Literacy Mission Authority and also describes itself as a certificate issued in relation to a Continuing Education Programme, presumably as part of the District Literacy Mission, Palakkad. But the certificate has been signed by the Director of the Kerala State Literacy Mission Authority apart from the signature of the Secretary of District Literacy Mission, Palakkad and the Secretary of Block Grama Panchayat Organisation. Certificates, which have been relied on by the petitioners in the instant case, bear the logo of District W.P.(C)s.2176 & 4665/2008 5 Literacy Mission. It is a certificate relatable to a Continuing Education Programme presumably under the auspices of the District Panchayat, Palakkad. It contains the signature of the District Project Co-ordinator, Chairman of the Municipality/Block Grama Panchayat/NGO and the Chairman/President of the District Literacy Mission, Districy Panchayat, Palakkad. 8. The question as to whether both the aforementioned certificates can be treated as a certificate issued evidencing successful completion of a course conducted by the Kerala State Literacy Mission Authority. The course could be conducted by the State Literacy Mission Authority on its own or through the District Centres. If there is a difference in the contents and the manner in which the course was conducted by the State Literacy Mission Authority on the one hand and the District Authorities on the other, then there would be adequate justification for the exclusion of certificates issued by the District Authorities from the purview of W.P.(C)s.2176 & 4665/2008 6 item 21 in Ext.P13. But any salient features which justify such a distinction between the two have not been pointed out to me, nor am I in a position to clearly come to a conclusion as to whether there is any perceptible difference between the course conducted by the State Literacy Mission Authority and the District Literacy Mission functioning under the Kerala State Literacy Mission Authority, in relation to any settled parameters mentioned by me, above. In my view, the issue requires a re-consideration by the PSC. 9. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- A competent authority of the first respondent shall consider the following aspects, in the matter of the certificates comprehended by clause 21 of Ext.P13 namely, the Circular issued by the PSC on 11.9.2007. (a). Whether the content of the course W.P.(C)s.2176 & 4665/2008 7 conducted by the State Literacy Mission Authority on its own and the District Literacy Mission as part of the Kerala Literacy Mission Authority is the same, substantially. (b). Whether the conduct of the course by the District Literacy Mission was monitored, regulated and disciplined by any Government Official and whether the conduct of the course by the District Mission had the approval of a competent authority of the Kerala State Literacy Mission and whether the competent officials of the Kerala State Literacy Mission Authority is also in any manner responsible for the conduct of the course by the District Literacy Mission. (c). The aforementioned matters may be ascertained by the first respondent from the Director of the Kerala State Literacy Mission Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The acceptability of Ext.P11 certificate in Writ Petition No.4665/2008 may also be put to the Director and his views are ascertained on the same. W.P.(C)s.2176 & 4665/2008 8 (d). A decision on this aspect shall be taken by the first respondent as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall be produced before the first respondent along with a representation. Copy of the writ petition shall also be produced by the petitioners before the first respondent. If the PSC finds that there is a material distinction between the State Literacy Mission Authority on the one hand and the District Authority on the other, and finds it unable to accept the contention of the petitioners in that regard, then reasons for coming to such a conclusion shall also be mentioned in the order to be passed by the first respondent as aforementioned. But, if the petitioners’ claims are accepted, consequential action may also be taken by the PSC within the aforesaid time frame. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs